BRITISH    RAILWAYS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/britishrailwaysfOOIawsrich 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

A  FINANCIAL    AND    COMMERCIAL 
WRVET 


BY 

W.    R.    LAWSON 

^  ■ 

CHAIRMAN    OF    THE     RAILWAY    SHAREHOLDERS'    ASSOCIATION 

AUTHOR   OF 

'aMI-.RICAN    industrial    PkOBLEMS,"     "BRITISH    ECONOMICS,"     "  MODERN  WARS 

AND    WAR   TAXES,"    "CANADA    AND   THE   EMPIRE,"    "  JOHN    BULL 

AND    HIS    SCHOOLS,"     ETC. 


NEW  YORK 
D.    VAN    NOSTRAND   CO. 

TWENTY-FIVE    PARK    PLACE 
1914 


we^" 


\^ 


V 


^ 


INTRODUCTION 

The  day  of  the  steam  traction  railway  is  nearly  over. 
Already  electric  traction  has  superseded  steam  in  many 
branches  of  transportation,  and  the  transition  may  be 
completed  within  the  lifetime  of  the  present  generation. 
This  may  therefore  be  a  suitable  occasion  for  reviewing 
the  work  of  the  steam  railway.  No  better  field  for  such 
a  review  could  be  desired  than  the  country  which  was  the 
pioneer  of  railway  builders. 

The  British  railway  system  is  not  only  the  oldest  of 
all,  but  it  is  in  many  ways  the  most  interesting.  Though 
it  has  been  by  no  means  the  most  enterprising,  it  has  had 
the  greatest  influence  on  the  development  of  railways 
throughout  the  world.  Although  now  a  small  system  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  United  States,  there  is  more  to  be 
learned  from  it  not  only  by  the  railway  engineer,  but  by 
the  traffic  manager,  the  trader  and  the  law-maker.  Its 
very  faults  and  shortcomings  are  instructive. 

A  retrospect  of  British  railways  carries  us  back  very 
nearly  a  whole  century.  It  calls  up  before  us  a  long  pro- 
cession of  famous  railway  builders,  administrators  and 
financial  organisers.  Stephenson,  Brunei,  Brassey,  Peto, 
the  railway  kings  of  their  day,  pass  before  us  in  imagina- 
tion as  we  try  to  estimate  the  permanent  value  of  the 
gigantic  task  which  they  accomplished.  In  the  long  roll 
of  railway  chairmen  and  managers  many  brilliant  though 
half -forgotten  names  stand  out  pre-eminently.  Moon, 
Finlay,  Grierson,  Watkin,  Gooch,  have  all  left  their  mark 
on  the  British  railway  of  to-day.  Not  the  least  dis- 
tinguished of  them  was  the  late  Lord  Salisbury,  who  in 
the  railway  crisis  of  1866  was  called  in  as  a  deus  ex  machina 
to  rescue  one  of  the  most  hopeless  of  the  many  railways 
then  in  bankruptcy. 


341.1 


vi  INTRODUCTION 

If  we  could  imagine  one  of  our  railway  pioneers  alive 
to-day,  and  familiar  with  the  whole  century  of  evolution 
and  development  that  lies  behind  us,  what,  we  wonder, 
would  be  his  verdict  upon  it  ?  How  many  mistakes 
might  he  point  out  to  us  in  the  original  planning  of  our 
railways,  especially  the  trunk  lines  ?  How  many  obstacles 
and  hindrances  to  their  progress  might  he  disclose  to  us  ? 
How  many  instances  might  he  give  us  of  foolish  and 
wasteful  expenditure  ? — how  many  of  extortion  and  black- 
mailing ? — how  many  of  bad  policy  and  false  enterprise  ? 
— ^how  many  of  ruinous  competition  and  destructive 
hostility  ? 

The  railway  managers  of  the  nineteenth  century  were 
continually  raising  new  problems  which  became  more  and 
more  difficult  as  the  traffic  increased  in  complexity.  As 
a  rule  they  were  much  easier  to  raise  than  to  settle. 
Very  few  of  them  were  ever  met  in  a  broad,  comprehensive 
spirit  and  finally  disposed  of.  They  were  temporised 
with  and  bandied  about  from  one  Select  Committee  to 
another,  or  from  one  Royal  Commission  to  another.  So 
they  passed  on  from  generation  to  generation,  and  some 
of  them  are  as  much  alive  to-day  as  they  were  seventy 
years  ago.  Our  parliamentary  debates  on  railway 
questions  are  crowded  with  the  ghosts  of  last-century 
problems  still  unsolved.  The  railwaymen  of  to-day  have 
these  problems  to  wrestle  with  as  well  as  their  own. 

In  other  respects  railway  debates  in  the  House  of 
Commons  are  rather  melancholy  reading.  They  reveal 
much  that  is  not  either  flattering  or  encouraging  to  railway 
shareholders.  No  subject  that  our  law-makers  have  to 
deal  with  excites  so  much  prejudice  or  provokes  such  a 
variety  of  hostile  criticism.  Tariff  Reform  and  Home 
Rule  are  non -controversial  subjects  compared  with  the 
most  innocent  kind  of  a  railway  Bill.  The  acrimonious 
discussions  which  took  place  over  the  one-clause  Bill  for 
redeemmg  the  pledge  which  the  Government  gave  to 
the  railway  companies  in  August  1911  are  still  fresh  in 
the  pubhc  memory.  Glancing  through  them  we  find  in 
almost  every  speech,  except  those  of  the  railway  directors 
themselves,  indications  of  anti-railway  sentiment.     Re- 


INTRODUCTION  vii 

proaches,  condemnation  and  censure  follow  each  other  so 
monotonously  that  at  last  we  wonder  how  any  one 
institution  could  have  drawn  down  on  itself  such  a  variety 
of  ill-will. 

After  all  the  railways  are  not  so  very  much  worse  than 
their  neighbours.  Their  misfortune  is  that  they  come  in 
contact  with  the  public  at  so  many  different  points,  and 
they  tread  unavoidably  on  so  many  people's  toes,  that 
popularity  is  as  impossible  for  them  as  for  mosquitoes  or 
rate  collectors.  The  utmost  they  can  expect  from  the 
public  is  some  approach  to  fair  play,  and  even  that  they 
have  not  been  able  to  count  upon  of  late.  A  little  less 
sweeping  censure  and  a  little  more  consideration  might  be 
wiser  as  well  as  more  merciful.  It  might,  for  instance, 
be  remembered  that  railway  managers  are  responsible 
for  the  largest  and  most  important  public  service  in  the 
country;  that  they  have  to  conduct  it  under  the  most 
difficult  conditions  and  restrictions ;  that  they  are  never 
free  as  other  directors  and  managers  are  to  act  on  their  own 
judgment,  and  that,  notwithstanding  all  sorts  of  official 
interference  and  control,  they  are  held  answerable  for  the 
lives,  limbs  and  property  of  the  millions  of  railway  users. 

Our  railway  companies  have  never  been  their  own 
masters,  and  are  becoming  less  so  every  year.  Recent 
events  have  made  clear  and  unmistakable  the  dilemma 
to  which  they  are  being  reduced.  On  the  one  hand,  they 
cannot  satisfy  the  traders  without  materially  reducing 
freight  rates,  which  involves  wholesale  reduction  of 
working  expenses,  wages  included.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  cannot  satisfy  their  servants  without  frequent 
advances  in  wages  as  per  the  trade  union  programme. 
To  this  has  lately  been  added  a  second  dilemma.  They 
have  to  conduct  an  enormous  volume  of  railway  traffic 
and  be  responsible  for  everji^hing  that  happens  to  it, 
while  at  every  turn  they  are  subject  to  the  dictation  of 
their  employees. 

We  are  living  in  an  age  of  railway  crises  and  con- 
troversies. Railway  managers  seem  to  spend  the  greater 
part  of  their  lives  in  hot  water,  either  parliamentary, 
disciphnary  or  financial.     The  halcyon  days  when  modest 


viii  INTRODUCTION 

dividends  could  be  earned  quietly,  when  there  were  few 
complaints  either  in  the  goods  or  passenger  department, 
and  when  railway  labour  was  the  most  contented  of  any — 
these  days  have  gone  for  ever.  In  their  place  we  have 
got  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  The  shareholder,  the 
worker,  the  trader,  the  nationaliser  and  the  confiscator 
are  all  in  bad  humour.  Each  of  them  has  his  own  idea  of 
how  a  railway  should  be  managed,  and  the  one  point  they 
agree  upon  is  condemnation  of  the  present  methods. 

Doubtless  these  have  their  faults,  and  may  be  capable 
of  improvement  in  many  directions.  But  how  much 
progress  can  be  expected  where  the  team  are  all  pulling 
in  different  directions  ?  What  chance  would  the  most 
skilful  general  have  of  victory  if  his  troops  were  all 
fighting  for  their  own  hand,  and  quarrelling  over  his 
orders  instead  of  obeying  them  ?  That  is  the  condition 
to  which  our  railway  service  may,  unknown  to  ourselves, 
be  rapidly  drifting.  It  may  have  more  to  fear  from 
internal  disorganisation  than  from  national  strikes  or  any 
other  bogey  with  which  socialists  and  sjmdicalists  can 
threaten  it. 

The  vital  question  of  the  day  for  British  and  possibly 
also  for  American  railways  is  how  long  they  can  be  ex- 
pected to  do  their  work  properly  under  existing  con- 
ditions ?  Sooner  or  later  the  discontent  of  their  servants, 
the  grumbling  of  their  customers,  the  persistent  obstruc- 
tion of  the  Legislature,  and  State  interference  in  a  multi- 
tude of  forms  must  impair  their  efl&ciency.  If  unchecked 
these  evils  can  have  only  one  end — chaos  and  heavy  loss. 
In  a  recent  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons  ^  it  was  said 
by  one  speaker  that  the  traders  were  going  to  demand  an 
inquiry  into  the  whole  question  of  railway  management. 
It  really  looks  as  if  it  would  have  to  come  to  that,  and  the 
sooner  perhaps  the  better.  Mr.  Bonar  Law  gave  a  certain 
amount  of  countenance  to  the  suggestion  by  hoping  that 
*'  if  the  Government  carry  out  their  promise  to  have  a  real 
inquiry  into  this  matter,  and  if  as  a  result  there  was  to  be 
any  preference,  it  should  be  given  to  home  produce  and 
not  to  produce  from  abroad." 

1  Railways  (No.  2)  Bill,  March  6,  1913. 


INTRODUCTION  ix 

After  the  leader  of  the  Opposition  had  put  in  a  passing 
word  for  home  industry,  Mr.  Wardle,  one  of  the  chief 
spokesmen  of  the  railwaymen  (also  editor  of  their  official 
organ,  the  Railway  Review),  stated  with  engaging  candour 
their  line  of  opposition.  He  and  his  friends,  he  said, 
could  not  vote  against  a  Bill  which  had  for  its  object  the 
raising  of  wages,  but  they  were  in  favour  of  limiting  it  to 
five  years.  Such  a  limitation  would  have  given  them 
"  the  opportunity  of  reviewing  the  state  of  affairs  from 
time  to  time,  and  bringing  the  railway  companies  up  to 
the  standard."  Had  Mr.  Asquith's  ingenious  idea  of 
afterwards  including  the  measure  in  the  Expiring  Laws 
Continuance  Bill  been  adopted,  Mr.  Wardle 's  "  oppor- 
tunity "  would  have  come  round  annually.  Can  that 
fact  have  been  in  the  mind  of  the  Prime  Minister  ? 

The  most  virulent  attack  of  railway-phobia  was  ex- 
hibited not  by  a  Labour  leader  or  a  Socialist  agitator,  but 
by  a  Unionist  member,  Mr.  Bat  hurst.  He  has  taken  up 
the  cause  of  the  farmers  and  small  traders  so  hotly  that 
anything  not  in  their  interest  is  anathema  to  him.  On 
that  ground  alone  he  repudiated  the  pledge  which  the 
Government  had  given  to  the  railway  companies  in 
return  for  valuable  considerations  long  since  fulfilled. 
With  a  bold  stretch  of  sophistry  he  declared  that  "  the 
most  it  amounted  to  was  that  certain  proposals  should  be 
made  to  Parliament,  and  proposals  had  been  made  to 
Parliament,  but  Parliament,  or  the  more  democratic  part 
of  it,  had  not  seen  fit  to  accept  them  in  the  form  in  which 
they  were  submitted." 

Mr.  Rowlands,  another  Unionist  member,  was  not 
quite  so  outspoken  a  repudiationist  as  Mr.  Bathurst,  but 
he  warned  the  railway  companies  that  five  years  hence 
they  would  find  they  had  made  a  great  mistake  in  rejecting 
the  time  limit.  Mr.  Wedgwood  maintained  his  reputation 
as  a  railway  phobist.  So  warmly  did  he  approve  of 
including  the  measure  in  the  Expiring  Laws  Continuance 
Bill,  that  he  might  almost  be  suspected  of  having  known 
something  about  it  beforehand.  It  is  just  the  sort  of 
inspiration  that  might  have  happened  to  him  and  his 
friend  Sir  Alfred  Mond.     The   prospect   of  an   annual 


X  INTRODUCTION 

baiting  for  the  railway  companies  would  delight  them 
both.  But  according  to  Mr.  Wedgwood  there  are  to  be 
no  more  bribes  or  legislative  sops  for  "  the  masters'  side." 
In  future  a  much  shorter  course  is  to  be  taken  with  them — 
if  Mr.  Wedgwood  is  consulted.  The  Government  are  to 
use  their  powers  not  to  coerce  the  workers,  but  to  coerce 
the  railway  directors  and  managers. 

Even  after  such  a  stream  of  unique  criticisms  Mr.  Keir 
Hardie  found  something  original  to  suggest.  He  opposed 
the  Bill  on  the  frankly  Socialist  ground  that  "  if  it  became 
law  it  would  add  considerably  to  the  value  of  railways." 
By  doing  so  it  would  prove  an  obstacle  to  their  ultimate 
nationalisation,  which  of  course  Mr.  Keir  Hardie  thinks 
is  bound  to  come.  Meanwhile  he  will  do  nothing  which, 
when  the  time  came,  might  cause  the  country  to  have  to 
pay  millions  more  for  the  railways  than  it  would  otherwise 
have  done. 

Two  Unionist  members  followed  Mr.  Keir  Hardie  and 
gave  a  crowning  proof  of  the  mental  confusion  which 
reigned  in  the  House  on  railway  policy  by  taking  opposite 
lines — one  siding  strongly  with  Mr.  Keir  Hardie,  and  the 
other  going  as  strongly  against  him.  Mr.  Peto  thought 
that  as  the  whole  question  of  the  relations  of  the  railway 
companies  to  the  trading  community  was  about  to  go 
into  the  melting-pot,  temporary  expedients  like  Con- 
ciliation Boards  and  bargains  about  raising  rates  were 
waste  of  time. 

Party  sentiments  appropriate  to  the  occasion  were  next 
expressed  by  a  succession  of  Radical  members.  Mr. 
Lough  thought  that  the  price  paid  for  the  settlement  of 
the  strike  was  too  high.  Mr.  G.  Roberts  contended  that 
the  pledge  given  by  the  Government  was  fulfilled  when 
Ministers  submitted  their  proposals  to  the  House — a 
curious  echo  from  the  Labour  benches  of  the  Jesuitical 
logic  of  that  orthodox  Unionist  Mr.  Bathurst.  Mr. 
Jowett  felt  it  was  a  very  bad  thing  that  they  could 
not  increase  wages  without  advancing  prices — a  doctrine 
which  holds  true  of  many  other  industries  than  railways. 
He  was  horrified  at  the  thought  of  the  Government 
"  by   statute  declaring  that   for   all  time   the  railways 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

should  be  indemnified  against  the  risk  of  increasing 
wages." 

Mr.  Walsh,  a  Lancashire  Labour  member,  delivered  the 
most  sweeping  indictment  against  the  Bill.  He  charged 
the  railway  companies  with  having  obtained  the  promise 
of  it  by  false  pretences.  They  had  pleaded  in  forma 
pauperis  when  in  fact  they  had  been  saving  money  and 
increasing  profits.  The  Government  also  had  been 
inconsistent.  In  passing  the  Minimum  Wage  Act  they 
had  insisted  on  putting  in  a  three-year  limit,  but  in  dealing 
with  the  railway  companies  they  said  it  was  unfair  to 
insert  a  limit.  Like  all  the  preceding  speakers  on  the 
Labour  benches,  Mr.  Walsh  declared  for  the  periodical 
review  of  railway  affairs  in  Parliament.  This  is  evidently 
a  new  development  of  the  Labour  programme,  and  as 
such  it  merits  the  early  attention  of  the  railway 
companies. 

The  last  private  member  to  join  in  the  discussion  was 
Mr.  Rutherford,  a  Liverpool  man  and  a  Unionist.  He 
was  willing  to  support  the  Government  against  his  own 
views  as  a  trader  if  they  would  promise  to  deal  next 
session  with  the  two  principal  grievances  of  the  traders, 
namely,  owners'  risk  rates  and  the  withdrawal  of  facilities. 
This  may  be  accepted  as  an  authoritative  statement  of 
the  Lancashire  position  in  the  railway  controversy.  It 
is  confirmed  by  reports  of  the  discussions  that  have  taken 
place  in  Lancashire  Chambers  of  Commerce  on  the 
subject.  The  Oldham  and  the  Ossett  chambers  in 
particular  have  been  protesting  strenuously  against 
railway  delays  and  demurrage  grievances.  Incidentally 
they  objected  to  the  No.  2  Bill. 

These  brief  reflections  from  the  mirror  of  Parliament 
will  be  more  illuminating  as  to  the  attitude  of  public 
opinion  toward  the  railways  than  any  amount  of  general 
description.  The  speakers  in  the  debate  referred  to  were 
all  representative  in  a  way,  and  every  speech  indicated 
some  particular  interest  or  sentiment.  One  might  gather 
from  them  a  catalogue  of  the  prevailing  objections  and 
prejudices  which  the  railways  are  having  to  contend  with. 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  it  was  alleged — 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

That  an  early  inquiry  into  railway  rates  might  be  held 
(Mr.  Bonar  Law) 

That  the  railway  companies  had  not  scrupulously 
fulfilled  their  pledges  to  the  men  (Mr.  Wardle). 

That  the  farmers  and  small  traders  were  being  sacrificed 
to  the  railway  companies  (Mr.  Bathurst). 

That  all  parliamentary  arrangements  with  the  railway 
companies  should  be  subject  to  periodical  review.  In 
practice  this  might  be  applied  to  all  railway  legislation 
whatever  (supported  by  nearly  all  the  Radical  and  Labour 
speakers). 

That  there  should  be  a  Royal  Commission  on  railway 
management  (Mr.  Rowlands). 

That  in  national  strikes  the  Government  should  take 
charge  of  the  railways  (Mr.  Wedgwood). 

That  in  view  of  nationalisation,  everything  likely  to 
add  to  the  value  of  the  railways  should  be  opposed 
(Mr.  Keir  Hardie). 

That  there  must  soon  be  a  complete  overhaul  of  the 
relations  between  the  railway  companies  and  the  trading 
community  (Mr.  Peto). 

That  in  the  bargain  of  August  1911  the  price  paid  by  the 
Government  was  too  high  (Mr.  Lough). 

That  the  grievances  of  the  agricultural  and  trading 
communities  would  be  intensified  by  the  proposed  increase 
of  rates  (Mr.  G.  Roberts). 

That  it  was  a  new  constitutional  principle  for  the 
railway  companies  to  be  indemnified  for  all  time  against 
the  risk  of  increasing  wages  (Mr.  Jowett). 

That  the  railway  companies  were  obtaining  the  right  to 
increase  wages  on  false  pretences,  as  they  were  saving 
money  and  increasing  their  profits  (Mr.  S.  Walsh). 

In  one  debate,  and  not  a  very  long  one  at  that,  a  dozen 
different  criticisms  all  more  or  less  unfavourable  were 
passed  on  the  railway  companies.  Hardly  a  single  word 
was  said  in  their  defence  even  on  the  Unionist  benches. 

Could  there  be  a  more  conclusive  proof  that  somehow  or 
another  they  have  lost  favour  with  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  must  henceforth  regard  it  as  a  hostile  tribunal  ?  If 
this  attitude  of  the  House  of  Commons  correctly  expresses 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

the  sentiments  of  the  community,  the  railway  companies 
have  need  to  bestir  themselves.  Either  the  public  are 
under  a  serious  delusion  as  to  the  character  and  conduct 
of  our  railway  administrators,  or  there  is  urgent  need  for 
drastic  reforms.  Among  so  many  grounds  of  dissatis- 
faction as  have  been  of  late  expressed  there  is  likely  to 
be  a  good  deal  of  misapprehension,  also  not  a  little 
exaggeration,  but  even  if  only  a  small  residue  of  truth 
remains  in  them,  they  will  deserve  thorough  investigation. 

So  much  for  the  political  aspect  of  our  railway  system, 
which  is  only  one  of  many.  In  addition  there  are  financial, 
technical,  commercial  and  administrative  questions  to 
examine.  Exaggerated  ideas  prevail  as  to  the  capitalisa- 
tion of  our  railways,  their  fixed  charges,  their  freight  rates 
and  their  working  expenses.  The  one  point  on  which 
they  are  not  envied  is  their  dividends.  No  one  can  say 
that  these  are  either  inflated  or  unearned.  The  condition 
of  home  railway  securities  is  about  as  puzzHng  as  that  of 
the  railways  themselves.  It  is  by  no  means  altogether 
unsatisfactory,  but  the  good  and  the  bad  points — the 
wheat  and  the  tares — are  mixed  up  in  a  very  exceptional 
way.  Nothing  short  of  severely  scientific  inquiry  can 
strike  a  balance  between  them. 

Inside  the  main  problem  of  British  railway  policy 
there  are  one  or  two  minor  ones  like  wheels  within  wheels. 
The  chief  problem  is  national,  but  branching  from  it  are 
a  number  of  local  ones.  At  the  head  of  this  supplementary 
list  the  chronic  problem  of  London  traffic  still  holds  its 
place.  It  was  here  that  our  railway  pioneers  had  their 
finest  opportunity  and  that  they  have  achieved  their 
worst  failures.  Whether  we  regard  London  as  the  world's 
premier  port  or  as  its  most  populous  city,  it  has  from 
a  railway  point  of  view  been  exceedingly  unfortunate. 
Both  its  street  and  its  river  traffic  have  become  a  bjrword 
for  congestion  and  overcrowding. 

The  most  far-sighted  of  our  early  railway  builders  had 
no  conception  of  the  future  possibilities  of  our  commercial 
ports  generally.  They  erred  grievously  with  regard  to 
London.  When  they  had  connected  it  in  a  round-about 
way  with  the  provinces  they  imagined  that  that  was  all 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

they  had  to  do.  They  overlooked  the  Thames,  which 
threw  open  to  them  the  trade  of  the  world  at  large. 
And  to  this  day  not  one  of  them  has  river  or  dock  ter- 
minals worthy  of  a  fifth-rate  port,  to  say  nothing  of  a 
commercial  metropolis.  Only  one  of  half-a-dozen  trunk 
lines  entering  London  from  the  North  has  direct  connec- 
tion with  the  principal  docks.  The  others  are  content 
with  running  powers  over  that  one,  and  even  these  are 
used  sparingly.  Careful  managers  prefer  to  cart  all  they 
possibly  can  across  London. 

Fortunately  for  British  trade  the  huge  blunder  com- 
mitted on  the  Thames  has  not  been  frequently  repeated 
at  the  out-ports.  They  have  been  rather  inclined  to 
the  opposite  extreme,  and  during  the  past  quarter  of  a 
century  there  has  been  somewhat  of  a  craze  among  our 
trunk  railways  for  having  water  terminals  of  their  own. 
Special  harbours  have  been  created  at  various  points  on 
the  coast  where  the  need  for  them  was  certainly  not 
too  obvious.  Several  of  them  have  been  formed  to  serve 
cross-channel  routes  and  short  sea  routes  to  the  Continent. 
These  routes  are  all  violently  competitive ;  so  much  so 
that  few  of  them  pay,  and  all  the  excuse  the  railway 
directors  can  make  for  them  is  that  they  are  necessary 
feeders  to  the  main  lines. 

Thus  we  find  two  extremes  exhibited  by  British  railways 
in  the  interchange  of  land  and  water  traffic.  Either  the 
facilities  provided  are  excessive, as  at  certain  of  the  Channel 
ports,  or  they  are  glaringly  defective,  as  in  the  Thames. 
But  that  is  only  one  of  the  railway  problems  as  to  which 
London  has  been  singularly  unfortunate.  Its  urban  Hnes 
of  communication,  both  for  goods  and  passengers,  appear 
to  have  been  deliberately  planned  so  as  to  produce  a 
maximum  of  crossing  and  re -crossing.  Any  metropohtan 
map  you  pick  up  shows  at  a  glance  how  the  whole  network 
of  tubes,  subways,  street  railways  and  overhead  lines 
has  been  muddled  up.  A  very  ironical  but  appropriate 
sequel  to  this  accumulative  chaos  is  that  until  lately  the 
whole  of  the  urban  traffic  of  London — rail,  train  and 
omnibus — was  being  carried  on  at  a  loss.  The  latest 
competitor  in  this  crowded  field  of  enterprise — ^the  motor 


INTRODUCTION 


XV 


bus — is  enjoying  a  run  of  luck  which  may  be  short  or  long, 
but  that  it  is  not  to  last  for  ever  is  one  of  the  simplest 
lessons  of  past  experience. 

The  burning  questions  of  the  day  in  the  railway  world 
are  the  insatiable  demands  of  organised  labour  and  the 
enormous  additions  they  are  making  year  by  year  to 
working  expenses.  This  would  have  been  a  most  difficult 
problem  even  if  the  railway  companies  had  enjoyed  a 
free  hand  in  dealing  with  it.  The  intervention  first  of  the 
Government  and  then  the  House  of  Commons  has  so 
*'  poisoned  the  atmosphere,"  as  the  saying  is,  that  friendly 
agreement  appears  to  have  become  impossible.  The 
Saturday  night  compromise  of  August  1911  between 
Mr.  Lloyd  George  and  the  Chairmen  of  the  London  and 
North-Westem  and  Midland  Railways  helped  the  Govern- 
ment out  of  a  bad  hole,  but  only  to  land  the  railway 
companies  in  another.  The  shadowy  prospect  held  out 
to  them  of  being  allowed  to  pass  on  all  future  increases 
in  wages  to  the  traders  has  so  far  proved  somewhat 
illusive.  Practically  all  they  have  gained  by  it  is  that 
they  have  now  two  hornets'  nests  on  their  hands  in  place 
of  one. 

The  most  conservative  of  railway  shareholders  can  no 
longer  shut  his  eyes  to  the  tendency  of  all  railway  questions 
and  controversies  to  merge  themselves  into  one  compre- 
hensive issue.  Wherever  they  begin  or  whatever  may 
be  their  local  details,  they  eventually  arrive  at  the 
supreme  question  of  the  railways  and  the  State.  It  is 
useless  and  even  foolish  to  blink  that  any  longer.  Feeling 
this  as  I  do,  I  have  deemed  it  my  duty  to  frankly  discuss 
in  the  last  two  chapters  the  knotty  subject  of  railway 
nationalisation. 


CONTENTS 

BOOK  FIRST— FINANCIAL 
CHAPTER  I 

WHAT  THEY   HAVE   COST 

Their  capitalisation,  nominal  and  actual — Their  cost  per  mile  com- 
pared with  foreign  railways — Difference  between  miles  of  line  and 
miles  of  single  track — ^Appreciations  and  depreciations  in  market 
values  of  stocks — -Line  and  single  track  mileage — Their  capitalisa- 
tion analysed  distinguishing  nominal  and  cash  capitals — ^Diversity 
of  railway  building  to  suit  different  kinds  of  traffic — The  nine 
trunk  railways  :  their  respective  capitals  actual  and  nominal — 
Their  averages  per  mile  of  hne  and  per  mile  of  single  track — Their 
comparative  density  of  traffic  —  The  southern  railways :  their 
average  capitals  per  mile  of  line  and  per  mile  of  single  track — The 
nine  mineral  railways :  their  nominal  and  cash  capitals  per  mile 
of  line  and  per  mile  of  single  track — Five  Scottish  railways  :  their 
nominal  and  cash  capitals  per  mile  of  line  and  per  mile  of  single 
track — Six  Irish  railways  :  their  nominal  and  cash  capitals  per  mile 
of  line  and  per  mile  of  single  track — Synopsis  of  the  five  representa- 
tive groups,  giving  a  comparative  view  of  their  capitalisations  per 
mile  of  hne  and  per  mile  of  single  track  .         .         .         .1-16 

CHAPTER  II 

WHY   THEY  HAVE   COST  SO   MUCH 

The  excessive  cost  of  parliamentary  powers,  surveys,  land,  and  other 
preparatory  work — The  pioneer  railways  penalised  by  nearly  every- 
body they  had  to  deal  with — Opinion  of  Sir  Rowland  Hill  on  the 
shabby  treatment  they  received  —  His  advocacy  of  Government 
ownership  of  railways  combined  with  joint  stock  operation — 
Views  of  Sir  Edward  Watkin  and  Mr.  AUport  as  to  dividing  the 
country  into  railway  districts — Early  mistakes  in  planning  terminal 
stations  especially  in  London — The  costly  error  of  joint  stations 
and  joint  urban  lines — Overlapping  train  services  and  duphcated 
traffics — Inadequate  ideas  of  the  future  possibilities  of  the  new 
method  of  transportation — Competition  in  "  public  facihties  '* 
more  expensive  and  wasteful  than  competition  in  rates — Sir  C.  J. 
Owens  of  the  London  and  South-Westem  Railway  on  luxurious 
0  xvii 


xviii  CONTENTS 

and  unnecessary  facilities — The  railway  companies  led  into  extrava- 
gance by  too  easy  borrowing — ^Modern  expenditure  on  improve- 
ments, short  cuts,  reconstruction  of  road-beds  and  bridges — Luxuri- 
ous rolling  stock  and  lightning  expresses  have  cost  more  than  rate 
wars  would  have  done — The  small  and  diminishing  returns  obtained 
from  new  expenditure  on  existing  lines — The  folly  of  the  "  universal 
providing  "  policy  now  pursued  by  our  principal  railway  companies 
— Their  locomotive  and  wagon  building  generally  more  expensive 
than  purchasing  from  outside  builders  would  be — The  American 
practice  of  buying  everything  in  the  best  and  cheapest  market — 
The  Canadian  Pacific  Railway  compared  with  a  standard  British 
line — Financial  advantages  of  Canadian  and  American  over  British 
railways — "  Scaling  down  "  of  American  capital  contrasted  with 
British  "share  splitting"  and  other  nominal  increases.     .     17-27 

CHAPTER  III 

THE   WORK  THEY   DO 

Highest  test  of  railway  efficiency  is  the  work  done  for  the  community — 
The  England  of  to-deiy  and  the  England  of  eighty  years  ago  con- 
^asied— The  tranBformatioh  it  has  undergone  largely  ifTiOt  cHiefly 
due  to  railways — Goods  and  passenger  movements  of  1911 — The 
great  industries  of  the  Thames,  the  Tjnie,  the  Clyde,  Yorkshire, 
Lancashire  and  the  country  generally  are  all  dependent  on  railways 
for  their  existence — Passenger  movements  of  England,  Scotland  and 
Ireland — Their  respective  relations  to  population — Their  proportions 
of  passenger  receipts — Their  average  number  of  passengers  per  train 
mile — Their  average  earnings  per  passenger  and  per  train  mile — Their 
mineral  and  merchandise  tonnage — Their  mineral  and  merchandise 
receipts — Their  train  mileage  of  merchandise  and  minerals — Their 
average  receipts  from  merchandise  and  minerals  per  mile  of  track 
and  per  train  mile — The  Trunk  Line  Group  :  general  view  of  their 
mileage,  passenger  earnings  and  goods  earnings — ^Average  numbers  of 
passengers  per  mile  of  track  and  per  train  mile — ^Average  passenger 
receipts  per  mile  of  track  and  per  train  mile — Tonnage  of  merchan- 
dise and  minerals — ^Average  tonnage  per  train  mile  and  per  mile 
of  track — The  Mineral  Group  :  average  passengers  per  mile  of 
track  and  per  train  mile — Merchandise  and  mineral  tonnage — 
Average  tonnage  per  train  mile  and  per  mile  of  track — The  Scottish 
Group  :  average  number  of  passengers  per  train  mile  and  per  mile 
of  track — Tonnage  of  merchandise  and  minerals — ^Average  tonnage 
per  train  mile  and  per  mile  of  track — The  Irish  Group  :  average 
number  of  passengers  per  train  mile  and  per  mile  of  track — Ton- 
nage of  merchandise  and  minerals — Average  tonnage  per  train  mile 
and  per  mile  of  track 28-39 

CHAPTER  IV 

THEIR  GROSS  AND  NET  REVENUES 

The  return  on  capital  expenditiu-e  is  the  practical  test  of  safe  and 
reasonable  capitalisation — Gross  and  net  earnings  of  English  rail- 


CONTENTS 


XIX 


ways  —  Their  percentage  on  capital  expenditures  —  Same  for 
Scottish  railways — Same  for  Irish  railways — Gross  and  net  earnings 
for  the  United  Kingdom — Unexpected  imiformity  of  net  earnings 
per  cent,  in  the  three  kingdoms — Great  importance  of  capitalisation 
as  a  factor  in  railway  results — British  capital  accoimts  overloaded 
with  outside  expenditure — ^American  railways  stick  closely  to  their 
proper  business — Large  proportion  of  British  railway  income  is 
extraneous  —  The  poor  results  of  extraneous  undertakings  or 
"side  shows"  —  The  Railway  Accoimts  and  Returns  Act  will 
greatly  facilitate  the  investigation  of  railway  earnings  and  working 
expenses — The  Trunk  Lines  :  they  do  three-fifths  of  the  railway 
work  of  the  United  Kingdom — Their  traffic  receipts  classified 
(merchandise,  minerals  and  live  stock) — Their  traffic  receipts  proper 
and  their  trading  receipts  compared — Their  traffic  receipts,  working 
expenses  and  net  revenues — Their  trading  receipts,  working  ex- 
penses and  net  revenues — Their  average  traffic  receipts,  expenses 
and  net  revenues  per  mile  of  single  track — The  Mineral  Group  : 
Their  railway  receipts  proper — ^Their  trading  receipts,  expenses 
and  net  revenues — The  Southern  Group  :  their  railway  receipts 
proper  —  Their  trading  and  railway  receipts  compared  —  The 
Scottish  Group  :  their  railway  receipts  proper — Their  railway 
and  trading  receipts  compared — Their  trading  receipts,  expenses 
and  net  receipts.  The  Irish  Group  :  their  railway  receipts  proper 
—  Their  railway  and  trading  receipts  compared  —  Their  trading 
receipts,  expenses  and  net  receipts 40-60 


CHAPTER  V 

RAILWAY   ACCOUNTS   AND   STATISTICS 

The  obsolete  railway  returns  of  1868 — The  agitation  for  fuller  and  more 
intelligible  accounts — Ton  miles  and  passenger  miles — The  Depart- 
mental Inquiry  by  the  Board  of  Trade — The  claims  of  the  statistical 
experts  presented  by  Mr.  Acworth  and  Sir  George  Paish — Sir  George 
Gibb's  plea  for  ton  miles — His  criticism  of  train  miles  as  a  test  of 
railway  efficiency — The  alleged  expense  and  difficulty  of  working 
out  ton  mile  statistics — Official  scepticism  as  to  their  value  in 
promoting  fuller  loading  of  trains — Sir  George  Paish's  explanations 
of  the  ton  mile  formula — The  author  admits  their  scientific  value 
and  their  usefulness  in  a  roundabout  way  but  holds  that  there  are 
other  reforms  at  once  more  practical  and  more  urgent  —  Great 
things  expected  of  the  new  accounts — Suggestion  that  the  Board 
of  Trade  returns  should  also  be  improved  and  expanded— The 
example  of  the  American  railway  statisticians  recommended  to 
British  railway  managers — The  first  requisite  of  railway  accounting 
at  the  present  day  is  more  exact  allocation  of  working  expenses 
between  passenger  and  goods  mileage — ^American  analysis  and 
classification  of  working  expenses  carried  much  farther  than  in 
this  country — The  possibility  of  having  a  profit  and  loss  account 
for  all  the  principal  main  line  trains — This  would  furnish  a 
definite  standard  for  railway  operations,  and  a  key  to  practical 
economies    ......••••     61-60 


XX  CONTENTS 


BOOK  SECOND— HISTORICAL 
CHAPTER  VI 

THE  TRANSITION  FROM  ROAD   TO  RAIL 

/At  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century,  when  EngHsh  roads  had 
reached  their  Hmit  of  perfection  they  were  superseded  by  the  new 
system  of  transportation — ^The  great  road  makers  of  the  age,  Telford 
and  Macadam — The  industrial  development  of  the  eighteenth  century 
— Charles  the  Second  an  active  promoter  of  good  roads — The  first  Act 
authorising  tolls  was  passed  in  his  reign  (1663) — Postlethwayte's 
dictionary  published  in  1746 — Its  interesting  description  of  English 
roads  and  road  traffic  at  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century — Cart- 
age rates  between  London  and  Birmingham — Between  London  and 
the  western  ports,  Bristol,  Exeter,  Gloucester,  etc. — The  Admiralty 
transport  service  between  London  and  Portsmouth — ^Adam  Smith's 
opinion  that  good  roads,  canals  and  navigable  rivers,  by  diminishing 
the  expense  of  carriage,  put  remote  parts  of  the  coiuitry  more  on 
a  level  with  those  near  towns — The  select  committees  on  roads 
1806,  1808,  1809,  1811,  1819,  1820  and  1821— The  Great  North 
Road,  the  Great  Western,  London  to  Holyhead  and  Carlisle  to 
Glasgow  built  diu*ing  this  period — They  were  all  crowded  and  work- 
ing up  to  their  full  capacity — ^Also  becoming  very  expensive  to 
maintain — The  advent  of  the  railway  saved  the  country  a  great 
deal  of  this  expense  and  also  from  having  to  launch  into  costly 
extensions — ^It  cheapened  transportation  and  thereby  not  only 
effected  important  savings  but  greatly  enlarged  the  area  of  profitable 
traffic — Dr.  Lardner  on  the  doubling  of  speed  doubling  the  radius 
of  the  circle  within  which  it  acts,  and  thus  quadrupling  the  area  of 

^  supply — Limitations,  restrictions  and  obstacles  with  which  railway 
pioneers  had  to  contend — Poor  surveying  of  the  original  railways 
— Their  sharp  curves,  heavy  grades  and  light  construction — Short 
nms  and  frequent  changes  from  one  kind  of  traction  to  another — 
Small  power  and  defective  working  of  the  primitive  locomotives — 
Most  of  the  early  railways  designed  for  light  traffic — Primitive 
schedules  of  railway  rates  modelled  on  the  canal  and  coaching 
tariffs — Roughly  speaking  a  ton  of  goods  is  now  carried  for  the 
price  of  a  cwt.  in  the  days  of  the  horse  carrier — The  evolution  of 
mileage  rates  and  classifications 61-74 

CHAPTER  VII 

A   CENTURY   OF  RAILWAY   BUILDING 

Several  types  of  primitive  railways :  the  colliery  tramway,  the  com- 
bined water-way  and  railway,  the  short  local  railway  and  the  long 
distance  passenger  and  goods  line — Original  locomotives  built  for 
heavy  hauls  rather  than  for  speed — The  first  section  of  the  Midland 
Railway  (Leicester  to  Swannington)  built  for  a  coal  and  passenger 
line — Invention  of  the  flanged  wheel  by  William  Jessop  in  1788, 
which,  according  to  Mr.  Brunlees,  introduced  an  organic  change  in 
railway   operating — First  intervention   of  Parliament  in  railway 


CONTENTS 


XXI 


operations — Select  Committee  in  1799  recommended  the  extension 
to  them  of  the  Standing  Orders  applicable  to  canals  and  river  navi- 
gations— "  Parliamentary  powers  "  gradually  developed  into  a 
system  of  parliamentary  blackmail — In  1904  Mr.  Acworth  calcu- 
lated that  £90,000,000,  or  an  average  of  £4,000  per  mile  of  the 
existing  Unes,  had  been  spent  on  surveys,  parliamentary  committees 
and  other  preliminary  expenses — The  first  railway  bills  very 
moderately  penalised  in  Parliament  compared  with  what  they 
are  now — 1799,  Bill  for  coal  and  passenger  line  from  Camo  Mill  to 
Cardiff — 1801,  Surrey  Iron  Railway  or  London  to  Croydon  line — 
1802,  Tredegar  Ironworks  line — 1809,  Forest  of  Dean — Stockton 
and  Darlington — Liverpool  and  Manchester — 1820,  Grey's  "scheme 
for  a  general  railway  " — 1802,  William  James's  Central  Jimction 
Railway  or  Tramway  from  London  to  Stratford-on-Avon — How 
the  existing  trimk  hnes  were  ultimately  "  muddled  through  " — 
British  railways  now  a  network  of  over  22,000  miles,  with  20,000 
locomotives,  70,000  passenger  coaches  and  130,000  goods  and 
mineral  wagons  exclusive  of  those  privately  owned — Their  charac- 
teristic defects  are  over-capitalisation  and  expensive  operation — 
Their  special  drawbacks  are  official  interference,  parliamentary 
hostility,  labour  unrest,  heavy  rates  and  taxes,  discontented 
traders — The  new  policy  of  co-operation  and  its  as  yet  barely  visible 
results — Duplication  of  train  services  still  rampant — Combined 
working  requires  to  be  carried  out  on  a  national  scale  though  not 
necessarily  by  the  State — How  London's  coal  supply  might  be  better 
regulated  and  great  savings  in  its  distribution  effected — Every- 
body trying  to  get  all  they  can  out  of  the  railways — They  should 
get  all  they  can  first  out  of  themselves  by  means  of  improved 
working  and  then  out  of  the  public  by  increased  traffic — Their  final 
test  of  efficiency  is  maximum  of  work  at  minimmn  cost  and  with 
minimum  waste  of  power 75-86 

CHAPTER  VIII 

ELECTRIC  RAILWAYS 

The  electric  railway  not  a  mere  improvement  on  the  steam  railway 
but  a  new  departure — In  frequency  of  service  it  has  already  got 
far  ahead  of  its  older  rival — It  requires  a  much  smaller  quantity  of 
rolling  stock  in  proportion  to  the  volume  of  its  traffic — It  entails 
much  less  expense  for  train  docks  and  sidings — The  proper  basis 
of  comparison  between  steam  and  electric  railways  is  not  cost  per 
mile  or  receipts  per  mile  but  average  return  on  capital,  gross  and 
per  mile — ^Electric  railways  1911  (in  London  nine  and  in  the  pro- 
vinces three) — Their  nominal  and  cash  capitals — Their  mileage  of 
single  track  and  average  capital  per  mile — Special  problem  of  the  elec- 
tric railway  in  London — Percentages  of  gross  and  net  revenue  to 
cash  capital — ^Average  gross  receipts  of  the  electric  railways  per  mile 
of  single  track — ^Average  per  mile  of  working  expenses — Comparisons 
between  typical  electric  and  steam  railways — ^Net  revenues  per  mile 
of  single  track  on  electric  and  steam  railways — Passenger  traffics 
per  mile  of  single  track — Density  of  traffic  on  London's  electric  tubes 
and  tramways — Passenger  receipts  on  electric  lines  analysed  and 
compared    with  steam    railway  receipts — ^Distinctive  features  of 


xxii  CONTENTS 

electric  traction  :  (1)  huge  capitalisation,  (2)  great  and  growing 
traffic,  (3)  heavy  operating  expenses,  (4)  low  ratio  of  expenses  to 
receipts,  (5)  meagre  residuum  available  for  dividends  .         .     87-101 

CHAPTER  IX 

London's  overwhelming  traffic 

The  baffling  problem  of  inter-urban  traffic  in  general  and  of  metropolitan 
traffic  in  particular — Three  generations  of  railway  engineers  have 
worked  upon  it — First  attempted  solution  overhead  lines,  second 
surface  lines,  third  imderground  lines — Contemporaneous  arrival 
of  the  tube  and  the  motor-bus — Their  curious  financial  alliance 
and  their  dubious  attempt  to  work  together — Joining  up  the 
tubes  and  underground  lines  and  completing  the  network — London's 
moral  and  sanitary  dilemma — Is  it  a  greater  evil  to  go  on  growing 
indefinitely  or  to  call  a  halt  and  return  to  a  manageable  size  ? — 
Forty  years'  growth  of  passenger  traffic  within  the  metropolitan 
area — In  1867  the  average  number  of  journeys  per  head  per  anmmi 
22-7  and  in  1910  218-5,  a  tenfold  increase  while  in  the  same  period 
the  population  merely  doubled  itself — This  excessive  travelling  may 
involve  radical  changes  in  the  habits  of  the  people  with  consequent 
moral  and  economic  transformation — Enormous  expenditure  of 
time  and  money  in  travelling  between  residence  and  business — 
Waste  of  physical  and  mental  energy  and  nerve  power — Chaotic 
condition  of  London's  railway  system — Bad  for  passengers  and  still 
worse  for  goods — Belated  attempts  to  divert  heavy  traffic  from  the 
streets  and  to  provide  independent  channels  for  through  traffic — 
Outer  London's  railway  projects — Local  opposition  likely  to  render 
them  impracticable — The  Regent's  Canal,  City  and  Docks  Railway 
the  most  feasible  scheme  of  all — Burked  by  railway  jealousies,  and 
rivalries 102-112 


BOOK   THIRD— TECHNICAL 
CHAPTER  X 

THE   GOODS   SERVICE 

Excessive  attention  of  railway  managers  to  the  showier  side  of  passenger 
business  has  checked  the  development  of  the  goods  service — 
Supremacy  of  the  goods  service  should  be  the  keynote  of  modem 
railway  administration — "  Full  train  loads  "  the  motto  of  the  up- 
to-date  goods  manager — "  Goods  expresses  "  now  almost  universal 
. — Examples  on  the  North  British  system — Light  loading  the  special 
drawback  of  local  goods  trains — The  parcel  business  of  the  rail- 
ways in  various  ways  overdone  and  improfitable — Complaints  of  the 
train  men  about  increasingly  heavier  trains  and  larger  engines — 
The  "  tranship  "  system  of  the  London  and  North- Western  Railway 
— ^Its  unpopularity  with  station  agents  and  porters — Its  value  in 
the  working  of  long  distance  traffic  and  in  interchange  traffic  with 
other  systems — Its  usefulness  in  tracing  lost  goods — Small  pro- 
portion of  losses  on  British  railways  compared  with   continental 


CONTENTS  xxiii 

and  American  lines — The  London  and  North-Western  '*  tranship  " 
rules  —  Increasing  work  and  responsibility  of  station  agents  — 
More  scientific  methods  of  management — British  and  American 
methods  of  handhng  freight  compared — Radical  differences  in  the 
services  covered  by  British  and  American  rates — The  American 
"train  crew"  system  appears  to  be  more  economical  than  our 
station  staff  system — "  Collection  and  delivery  "  the  special  incubus 
of  British  railways  from  which  American  roads  are  entirely  free — 
A  return  to  the  original  systemi  of  station  to  station  conveyance 
worth    considering 113-126 

CHAPTER  XI 

THE   PASSENGER  SERVICE 

Differences  between  the  goods  and  passenger  services  —  Their  one 
point  in  common  is  the  maxim  that  the  full  load  is  the  measure 
of  success  —  Inherent  contradiction  between  regular  rates  and 
excursion  rates — All  special  rates  abolished  on  German  railways — 
Rundreisey  or  circular  tours,  are  now  merely  the  sum  total  of  the 
ordinary  mileage  fares — In  the  United  States  there  is  also  a  rever- 
sion to  imiform  mileage  fares — The  British  season  ticket  necessary 
but  improvident  and  open  to  great  abuse — The  fare  it  represents 
varies  widely  with  different  users — The  Babel  of  cut  rates,  work- 
men's trains,  cheap  trains,  week-end  tickets,  day  returns,  half-day 
returns,  excursion  parties,  cheap  trips,  combined  railway  and  hotel 
tickets,  tourist  tickets  and  what  not — British  passenger  tariffs  in 
1913  are  as  complex  and  confusing  as  the  customs  tariffs  of  a  century 
ago — The  two,  five,  eight,  fourteen  or  sixteen  day  return  muddle — 
The  cheap  tripper  had  formerly  to  ride  in  the  oldest  coaches  at  the 
slowest  speed  and  to  be  shunted  into  sidings  in  order  to  let  regular 
trains  pass,  but  now  he  has  the  best  of  the  rolling  stock,  the  fastest 
trains  and  the  most  punctual  journeys — On  the  Great  Eastern, 
London  to  Cromer,  eight  different  fares — On  the  Midland,  London 
to  Leicester,  four  or  five  different  fares — Half-a-dozen  prices  for  the 
same  article  is  not  good  business — Sir  George  Paish's  opinion  that 
there  is  a  larger  passenger  mileage  at  cheap  ticket  rates  than  at  the 
ordinary  fares — Every  year  better  service  is  being  given  to 
passengers,  and  goods  traffic  has  to  pay  far  more  than  its  fair  share 
of  the  expense — The  popular  railway  manager's  three  favourites 
are  the  cheap  tripper,  the  smnmer  tourist  and  the  Pullman  car 
sybarite — Mr.  H.  G.  Archer  on  "  the  truly  amazing  grand  total  " 
of  tourist  expresses — Cross-country  expresses  the  latest  fashion — 
Sir  Samuel  Fay's  panegyric  on  ' '  through  passenger  and  goods  trains 
east,  west,  north  and  south" — Mr.  Butterworth  of  the  North- 
Eastem  Railway  on  the  luxurious  travelling  of  the  present  day — 
Fishguard  the  last  word  in  swagger  enterprise         .         .     126-139 

CHAPTER  XII 

TERMINALS  AND  TERMINAL  CHARGES 

English  theory  of  railways  as  "  common  carriers  " — Obscure  origin  of 
the  word     terminal " — In  only  two  railway  Acts  are  station  charges 


xxiv  CONTENTS 

specifically  authorised — Several  early  Acts  sanction  reasonable 
charges  for  loading  and  unloading — By  degrees  as  platforms,  sheds, 
sidings,  turn- tables,  etc.,  had  to  be  provided  separate  charges  were 
added  for  them — ^Mr.  Joseph  Horrocks  on  railway  rates — His  analysis 
of  them  into  charges  for  railage,  haulage  and  truckage  with  their 
corresponding  station  services — His  proposed  method  of  allocating 
the  cost  of  the  various  services  and  the  charges  to  be  made  for 
them — Haulage  not  by  any  means  the  most  expensive  part  of 
^  the  process  of  transportation — Dr.  Lardner's  neglected  advice  to 
railway  managers  that  there  was  more  money  in  goods  than  in 
passenger  traffic — ^The  long  delay  in  recognising  terminal  charges — 
The  Joint  Committee  of  1873  recommended  that  if  allowed  they 
should  be  brought  under  legal  supervision — The  Railway  Rates 
Committee  of  1881-2  proceeded  a  step  further  and  proposed  a  xmiform 
classification  of  goods  for  the  whole  country  to  include  terminal 
charges,  the  latter  to  be  also  subject  to  the  same  regulations  as  the 
rates  themselves — Mr.  Acworth  on  the  large  proportion  of  a  railway 
rate  that  goes  for  collection  and  delivery,  terminals  and  other 
accessory  services — The  consequent  difficiilty  of  economising  to 
any  great  extent  on  haulage — This  partly  explains  the  apparent 
excess  of  British  over  German  and  American  freight  rates — ^American 
railways  neither  collect  nor  deliver — On  their  much  longer  hauls 
terminals  are  a  relatively  insignificant  factor  .         .         .     140-148 

CHAPTER  XIII 

THE   ROLLING   STOCK 

Rolling  stock  a  hitherto  imder-estimated  factor  in  railway  economics — 
More  money  to  be  saved  or  wasted  here  than  in  almost  any  other 
branch  of  the  railway  service — Generally  speaking  it  is  a  weak  point 
in  our  railway  policy — ^The  free  use  of  wagons  by  wholesale  traders 
formerly  a  great  source  of  expense  to  the  companies — The  outcry 
against  demurrage  charges — Error  of  British  railways  in  not 
scrapping  old  and  inefficient  wagons — Under-loading  a  very  ancient 
cause  of  complaint — Imperfect  records  of  rolling  stock  mileage — 
Dr.  Lardner's  ton-mile  formula  not  followed  up — Census  of  loco- 
motives, passenger  coaches  and  goods  wagons  in  1911 — Railway 
which  gets  the  largest  amoimt  of  work  out  of  its  rolling  stock  pre- 
sumably the  most  efficient — ^Average  work  of  passenger  locomotives 
and  coaches  in  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland  in  1911 — ^Average 
work  of  goods  locomotives  and  wagons.  Comparative  amounts 
of  rolling  stock  per  mile  of  line  in  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland. 
Average  earnings  per  passenger  locomotive  and  goods  locomotive 
— ^Average  earnings  per  passenger  coach  and  per  goods  wagon — 
The  low  average  earnings  of  goods  wagons  in  Scotland — Compara- 
tive earnings  of  rolling  stock  on  British  trimk  lines — Confusion 
arising  from  privately  owned  wagons — ^Marked  increase  in  cost  of 
operating  and  maintaining  rolling  stock  ....     149-160 


CONTENTS  XXV 

BOOK  FOURTH— COMMERCIAL 
CHAPTER  XIV 

THEORIES   OF  RATE-MAKING 

Complexity  of  modem  railway  rates — ^Their  conflicting  terms  and 
conditions — Limitations  and  checks  on  rate-making  power — ^Mr. 
Grierson  of  the  Great  Western  Railway  on  how  the  original  rates 
were  arrived  at  by  negotiations  with  traders  and  manufacturers — 
No  "  natural  "  or  "  scientific  "  basis  of  rates  possible — ^They  have 
now  become  questions  of  party  politics — ^AU  the  old  principles  and 
methods  of  rate  making  brushed  aside — They  were  based  on  the 
doctrine  that  railway  proprietors  and  operators  are  entitled  to  a 
fair  return  on  their  outlay — Mr.  Acworth's  "  cost  of  service  "  theory  ^ 
— ^Declared  by  the  older  generation  of  railway  managers  to  be  only 
approximately  accurate — Professor  Hadley's  "development  of 
traffic "  theory — Better  adapted  to  American  than  to  British 
railways — ^Worthy  of  greater  attention  from  our  railway  managers 
— Charging  according  to  the  value  of  the  goods  or  "what  the  traffic 
will  bear  " — Classification  an  indirect  form  of  rate  making — Exces- 
sive subdivision  of  railway  charges — Original  classifications  based 
on  value  taking  into  accoimt  weight  and  bulk — Professor  Hadley's 
statement  that  a  great  deal  of  freight  of  small  value  is  carried  not 
merely  at  less  than  the  average  rates  but  at  less  than  the  average 
cost — Mr.  C.  P.  Huntington  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railway  argued 
that  when  a  paying  train  load  had  been  secured  all  additions  were 
so  much  extra  revenue — Mr.  Acworth's  three  fundamental  rules 
of  railway  policy:  (1)  get  trafl&c,  (2)  charge  no  prohibitory  rate, 
(3)  have  no  rate  so  low  as  not  to  cover  the  additional  cost  which 
the  particular  traffic  entails — The  three  stages  in  the  evolution  of 
British  rates:  (1)  individual  tariffs,  (2)  associated  tariffs,  (3)  Par- 
liamentary and  Board  of  Trade  tariffs — ^Maximum  and  minimum 
schedules 161-172 


CHAPTER  XV 

REGULAR  RATES  AND  FARES 

Original  railways  adopted  mail  coach  fares  and  classes — Station  agents, 
drivers,  guards,  porters  all  christened  with  mail  coach  names — At 
an  early  period  a  penny  a  mile  became  the  standard  third-class 
fare — Original  goods  traffic  organised  on  canal  models — How  the 
railways  began  with  high-grade  traffic  and  gradually  reached  out 
for  the  lower  grades — ^Sir  George  Findlay's  defence  of  the  rates 
then  in  operation  (1880)  as  being  governed  by  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  traffic,  the  pressure  of  competition  by  land  or  water, 
and  the  commercial  value  of  the  commodity — Mr.  Grierson's  de- 
fence of  "  what  the  traffic  will  bear  " — The  income  tax  analogy — 
"  Obtaining  the  revenue  of  the  country  from  the  persons  who  can 
best  afford  to  pay  " — Mr.  Acworth's  justification  of  graded  rates, 


xxvi  CONTENTS 

from  the  lowest  which  barely  cover  out-of-pocket  expenses  up  to 
the  highest  which  leave  a  large  surplus  to  cover  the  deficiencies  of 
the  lower  grades — This  again  is  more  American  than  British,  and  it 
is  doubtful  if  either  British  traders  or  shareholders  would  approve 
of  it — Professor  Hadley's  version  of  it — Governing  principle  of 
present-day  management  is  to  obtain  a  living  return  on  the  capital 
cost  of  the  railway,  and  to  divide  the  charge  as  equitably  as  possible 
over  the  various  classes  and  grades  of  freight — The  question  con- 
fused and  befogged  by  parliamentary  interference  —  Traders  be- 
wildered by  thousands  of  through  rates,  local  rates,  distance  rates, 
terminal  charges,  "  collection  and  delivery  "  rates,  owners'  risk  rates 
and  A,  B,  C  rates — On  a  single  consignment  there  may  often  be 
eight  or  nine  different  items  to  work  out — Less  Philadelphia  law 
and  more  plain  business  sense  needed  in  the  goods  service     173-182 


CHAPTER  XVI 

EXCEPTIONAL  RATES  AND   SERVICES 

Our  fundamental  law  of  freight  rates  and  classifications  embodied  in 
the  Acts  of  1888  and  1894 — Clearing  House  threefold  division  of 
traffic :  (1)  parcels,  (2)  "  smalls  "  (under  three  cwt.),  and  (3)  heavy 
traffic — ^A,  B,  and  C  rates  are  of  two  kinds :  first,  for  low-grade 
freight  such  as  coal,  iron  ore,  bricks,  cement,  etc.,  and  secondly, 
for  large  quantities  of  higher  class  goods  —  Exceptional  rates 
much  more  common  than  is  supposed — At  other  extreme  some 
kinds  of  light  traffic  unduly  favoured — Passenger  train  parcel  service 
of  very  doubtful  value — The  quick  delivery  service  absurdly  over- 
done— Panegyrics  on  it  by  Lord  Stal bridge  and  Sir  George  Findlay 
— Misfortune  for  the  railways  that  the  pre-existing  carrier  service 
of  Pickford  &  Co.  and  others  was  not  fitted  into  the  railway 
system — It  could  have  co-operated  with  the  railways  instead  of 
competing  with  them  as  it  did  at  the  outset — Lord  Claud  Hamilton 
on  the  "  rapid  dispatch  "  craze  of  1906  and  the  insane  competition 
it  produced — Legitimate  as  well  as  illegitimate  forms  of  rivalry, 
but  much  less  heard  about  them — Sometimes  economic  causes 
for  exceptional  rates — The  special  difficulty  of  "  back  loading  " — 
Mr.  Grierson  on  the  "load  up  at  any  price  "  policy — Inconsistency 
of  railway  companies  in  fighting  for  higher  statutory  powers  than 
they  dare  to  use — "  Collection  and  delivery "  rates  often  im- 
remunerative — The  extravagant  cartage  services  in  large  cities, 
London  especially — Questionable  competition  with  the  Parcel  Post 
— Railways  handicapped  by  their  accessories  —  Some  terminal 
stations  have  cost  as  much  as  would  build  a  hundred  miles  of  line — 
Traders  more  frequently  complain  of  unfair  or  unequal  than  of 
excessive  rates — The  chief  object  of  the  earlier  Railway  Acts  was 
to  prevent  discrimination  in  rates  or  service — Effect  of  the  Rail- 
way Clauses  Consolidation  Act  and  its  proviso,  that  "all  such 
tolls  be  at  all  times  charged  equally  to  all  persons  " — This  adopted 
from  the  old  common  carriers'  law — The  Consolidation  Act  of  1844 
allowed  the  railways  more  freedom  than  the  Consolidating  Act  of 
1894 183-194 


CONTENTS  xxvii 

CHAPTER  XVII 

COMPETITIVE   RATES 

Causes  of  competitive  rates  divisible  into  (1)  economic,  (2)  compulsory, 
that  is  resulting  from  outside  competition,  (3)  voluntary,  or  originat- 
ing with  the  railways  themselves — Repeal  of  the  Com  Laws  caused 
an  agricultural  and  commercial  revolution  which  demanded  new 
channels  of  transportation — External  competition  by  road  or  water 
has  only  of  late  become  serious — Rivalry  among  railway  managers 
was  in  the  Victorian  Age  disastrous,  but  is  now  dying  down — 
Bradford  as  an  example  of  insane  fighting  for  traffic — The  Economist 
on  the  scramble  for  Manchester  business  in  1907 — The  new  policy 
of  rearranging  competitive  stations  so  as  to  avoid  duplication  and 
triplication — Domestic  and  foreign  rates — Mr.  Grierson's  plea  that 
export  trade  has  always  been  favoured — The  Stockton  and  Darling- 
ton Railway's  halfpenny  per  ton  per  mile  for  export  coal,  and  four- 
pence  per  ton  per  mile  for  inland — Water  carriage  had  given  foreign 
trade  an  advantage  over  home  trade  before  railways  were  bom — 
Farmer's  Magazine^  1840,  on  the  carriage  of  wheat  from  Hamburg 
to  London  and  from  Hertfordshire  to  London — The  Southampton 
Docks  case  showed  that  full  loaded  trains  of  foreign  produce  paid 
the  railway  better  at  6s.  per  ton  than  small  consignments  of  local 
produce  could  do  even  at  155.  per  ton — This  was  a  case  for  what 
the  Americans  call  a  "  development  "  rate — The  south  coast  rail- 
ways are  at  last  adopting  this  policy,  and  late  in  the  day  as  it  is  the 
results  are  very  satisfactory  both  to  the  local  producers  and  to  the 
railways — British  traders  and  railway  discrimination — Commercial 
activity  of  the  Victorian  Age — The  prolonged  struggle  of  1880-1894 
for  luiiform  and  intelligible  railway  rates — Present  House  of  Com- 
mons hostile  to  the  railways  —  Mr.  H.  M.  Hyndman's  diatribe 
against  them 195-205 

CHAPTER  XVIII 

LONG  AND  SHORT  HAUL  RATES 

Short-haul  railways  like  the  British  are  heavily  handicapped  by  ter- 
minal charges,  and  the  heavier  these  charges  are  in  comparison 
with  the  haulage  charge  the  worse  is  the  handicap — Consequently 
short  hauls  and  expensive  terminals  are  the  two  weak  points  of  our 
system — French  as  well  as  American  experience  proves  that  long 
hauls  at  low  rates  pay  better  than  short  hauls  at  high  rates — Mr. 
Marriott's  analysed  items  of  typical  goods  rates  between  Manchester 
and  Bradford  and  Colne  and  London — The  high  rate  on  the  first 
twenty  miles,  lower  rate  on  the  next  thirty  miles,  and  still  lower 
rate  on  the  next  fifty  miles  abolishes  all  the  advantages  of  local 
markets — Should  the  surcharge  on  short-distance  hauls  be  main- 
tained ? — ^What  long-distance  hauls  at  very  low  rates  have  done 
for  the  development  of  the  North-west  and  of  the  Pacific  coast 
generally — An  historical  study  commended  to  British  railway 
officials — Mr.  J.  J.  Hill  on  British  and  American  rates — Sir  George 
Gibb's  comparative  examples — Mr.  Hill's  maxim  that  the  railway 
can  only  increase  its  traffic  by  increasing  the  business  of  its  customers 


xxviii  CONTENTS 

— How  the  lumber  business  of  the  Pacific  slope  was  built  up  by  a 
rate  of  forty  cents  per  cwt.  for  a  distance  of  2000  miles,  equal  to 
two-fifths  of  a  cent,  per  ton  per  mile — Rate-making  power  has  been 
a  great  factor  in  American  industrial  development  both  East  and 
West 206-217 


BOOK  FIFTH— ADMINISTRATIVE 
CHAPTER  XIX 

THE   DIRECTORS 

British  railway  directors  practically  co-optive — Shareholders  have 
little  or  no  voice  in  selecting  them,  and  seldom  see  them  except  at 
the  statutory  meetings — These  hitherto  half-yearly,  but  in  future 
to  be  only  yearly — Practice  of  taking  retiring  General  Managers 
on  the  Board — Directors  not  as  a  rule  technical  men — Railway 
Boards  made  up  of  local  landowners,  ironmasters,  shipowners, 
manufacturers,  and  one  or  two  practical  financiers — Chief  qualifi- 
cation ability  to  bring  business  to  the  company  —  Peerage  well 
represented  on  most  railways — Business  directors  rarely  take  ad- 
vantage of  their  positions  for  their  private  interest— In  recent 
years  indirect  danger  of  their  being  too  conciliatory  to  railway- 
men  where  strikes  on  the  line  might  shut  down  their  own  works — 
It  has  happened  that  districts  in  which  railway  directors  or  managers 
are  interested  have  been  better  served  than  competing  districts 
without  these  advantages — Shipowners  are  at  the  present  day  a 
dangerous  class  of  directors — As  in  the  case  of  Fishguard  they  may 
tempt  a  Board  into  large  capital  expenditiire  of  an  unremunerative 
character — Formerly  a  business  reputation  of  any  sort  was  deemed 
a  good  passport  to  the  railway  Board-room — ^Ex-Ministers  generally 
favoiu-ed — ^The  London  and  North- Western  chairmanship  offered 
to  the  late  Mr.  W.  H.  Smith  when  he  retired  from  office — Local 
members  of  Parliament  at  one  time  in  request,  but  now  at  a  discount 
— The  Bank  of  England  and  its  amateur  Governors — Practical 
sagacity  and  absolute  trustworthiness  make  up  for  technical  short- 
comings— First  generation  of  railway  directors  acknowledged  no 
responsibility  to  the  State  or  to  anybody  but  their  shareholders — 
Dr.  Lardner  advocated  an  efficient  system  of  control — He  was  also  in 
favour  of  general  publicity  and  detailed  accounts — ^American  rail- 
way Boards  originally  formed  on  British  model,  but  it  has  been 
entirely  changed— The  Canadian  Pacific  directorate  compared  with 
a  typical  English  Board — The  patriarchal  directors  of  twenty  years 
ago  dying  out — Their  successors  of  to-day  begin  young  and  undergo 
regular  training  on  the  committees,  which  divide  amongst  them  the 
supervision  of  the  various  branches  of  administration  .     218-228 

CHAPTER  XX 

THE   EXECUTIVE   OFFICERS 

The  first  railway  Acts  of  Parliament  required  only  two  officials,  a 
secretary  and  treasurer — Their  duties  minutely  specified,  but  the 


CONTENTS 


XXIX 


chairman,  the  manager  and  all  the  subordinate  officials  were 
optional — The  secretary  was  usually  General  Manager  as  well,  but 
sometimes  it  was  the  Chief  Engineer — Occasionally  the  treasurership 
was  entrusted  to  a  bank :  hence  the  large  number  of  railway  accounts 
held  by  certain  big  banks — Sir  George  Findlay's  account  of  the 
London  and  North- Western  staff  in  his  day — ^Mr.  Fisher's  summary 
of  the  duties  of  a  General  Manager — Of  late  years  they  have  been 
greatly  and  it  may  be  even  dangerously  increased  by  the  multipli- 
cation of  "  side  shows  " — In  any  case  the  "  side  shows  "  must  to 

a  certain  extent  distract  his  attention  from  his  proper  duties 

Sir  William  Van  Home  on  purveying  for  railway  hotels — Railway 
engine  and  car  building  works  very  doubtful  economies — Railway 
harbours  and  docks  notoriously  poor  speculations — "  The  cook, 
barber  and  lady's-maid  "  trains  de  luxe — Excessive  multiplication 
of  officials  and  operators  tends  to  intensify  labour  unrest — Executive 
organisation  develops  slowly,  and  is  still  primitive  compared  with 
that  of  foreign  railways — ^Anomalous  position  of  passenger  staff — 
Superintendent  of  the  line  as  chief  ticket  agent — ^A  well-organised 
passenger  department  needed — The  folly  of  hiring  out  passenger 
trains  to  excursion  agents  and  spoiling  the  regular  business  of  the 
line — The  executive  staff  of  the  Canadian  Pacific  Railway  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  London  and  North- Western — ^The  reticence 
of  railway  officials  in  England  and  Scotland  contrasted  with  their 
frankness  in  the  United  States — The  conferences  and  friendly  dis- 
cussions of  American  railroad  managers  with  their  customers — 
Good  relations  cultivated  with  Chambers  of  Commerce,  agricultural 
clubs  and  traders  generally     ......     229-241 

CHAPTER  XXI 

THE  WORKING   STAFF 

Systematic  and  sympathetic  study  of  the  economic  conditions  of  wage- 
earners  a  peculiar  feature  of  our  time — Board  of  Trade  inquiries 
into  their  earnings  and  hours  of  labour — The  threatened  national 
strike  of  1907  owed  its  chief  terror  to  general  ignorance  of  the  rail- 
way situation — This  defect  has  now  been  to  a  large  extent  cor- 
rected— The  census  of  railway  servants,  1907 — Mr.  Barnes,  the  editor, 
pays  a  high  compliment  to  the  railway  companies  for  the  cordial 
assistance  they  rendered  in  its  preparation — Tabular  summaries 
of  weekly  wage  of  men  and  boys  on  steam  railways,  their  average 
rates  of  wages  and  actual  earnings — The  same  for  electric  railways 
— Peculiar  advantages  of  railway  labour  as  acknowledged  by  the 
more  fair-minded  of  the  men  themselves — Their  freedom  to  organise 
and  the  use  they  have  made  of  it — ^The  Conciliation  Boards  and  the 
divided  opinions  of  the  men  regarding  them — The  special  favour 
Labour  enjoys  in  the  House  of  Commons — The  selfish  class  use  made 
of  the  Labour  vote — Its  invariable  and  increasing  hostility  to 
railway  Bills — The  grievance-mongering  campaign  of  the  National 
Union  of  Railwaymen — Disregard  of  contracts  and  written  engage- 
ments— Good  faith  and  common  honesty  indispensable  under  any 
system  of  railway  ownership — Even  trade  unions  are  liable  to  strikes 
— Practical  question  is,  what  sort  of  a  return  the  railwayman  should 
make  for  his  wages?— ^Spasmodic  revolts  on  the  North-Eastem  and 


CONTENTS 

the  Midland  Railways — Railwaymen  aim  at  becoming  co-optive 
like  the  directors 242-253 

CHAPTER  XXII 

FOUR   NATIONAL  RAILWAY   SYSTEMS 

The  peculiar  evolution  of  British  railways  out  of  the  preceding  mail 
coach  and  common  carrier  regime — ^The  typical  pioneer  railway  of 
the  Old  World  entirely  different  from  that  of  the  New  World — British 
and  American  railways  represent  the  two  antipodes  of  modem 
transportation — Railway  mileage  of  the  world — ^About  half  a 
million  miles  now  in  operation — Three-fifths  of  it  are  embraced  in 
four  large  networks  :  British,  French,  Prussian  and  American — Their 
mileages  of  line  and  of  single  track  compared — Their  capitalisations 
per  mile  of  line — Causes  of  the  apparently  heavy  capitalisation  of 
British  railways — Some  errors  of  British  railway  pioneers — The 
four  great  national  systems  compared  in  respect  of  gross  revenues, 
working  expenses  and  net  revenues — Remarkable  uniformity  in 
their  average  gross  receipts  and  working  expenses  per  mile  but 
great  disparity  in  their  net  receipts — Their  rolling  stock  per  1000 
miles  of  line — American  roads  do  most  work  in  proportion  to  their 
mileage  and  equipment    .......     254-267 

BOOK  SIXTH— THEIR  POLITICAL  RELATIONS 
CHAPTER  XXIII 

TO   THE   LEGISLATURE 

Railways  at  first  warmly  welcomed — When  success  made  them  power- 
ful reaction  followed  and  they  were  treated  as  monopolists — Railway 
legislation  from  1844  to  1894  swayed  between  these  two  extremes — 
Fimdamental  principles  of  our  railway  policy  laid  down  in  the 
report  of  the  Select  Committee  of  1844  believed  to  have  been 
written  by  Mr.  Gladstone — Its  acknowledgment  of  the  superior 
cheapness,  security  and  rapidity  of  traveUing  due  to  the  railways — 
Its  declaration  that  they  combined  immense  benefit  to  the  public 
with  a  very  moderate  standard  of  average  remuneration  to  the 
projectors — Nevertheless,  they  should  be  subjected  to  "habitual  and 
effective  supervision  on  the  part  of  the  Government " — Railway 
Department  of  the  Board  of  Trade  with  Mr.  Samuel  Laing,  after- 
wards Chairman  of  the  Brighton  Railway,  at  its  head — The  Com- 
mittee of  1844  foreshadowed  "  a  great  system  of  communication 
binding  together  the  various  districts  of  the  coimtry  "  —  This 
parliamentary  dream  has  been  very  imperfectly  realised  —  The 
acctmiulation  of  statutory  restrictions  and  disabilities — Regulative 
authority  divided  between  Parliament,  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  the 
Railway  Commissioners — Railway  managers  differ  greatly  as  to  the 
value  of  these  respective  tribunals — The  late  Sir  Robert  Inglis  of 
the  Great  Western  Railway  preferred  to  deal  with  Parhament  itself 
— Diu-ing  past  half-century  periodical  outbreaks  of  anti-railway 
agitation — Between  1888  and  1894  a  continuous  battle  of  rates 
and  classifications  fought  with  traders — This  no  sooner  settled  than 
the  labour  campaign  commenced  which  gradually  developed  into 


CONTENTS 


XXXI 


open  war — Railways  now  at  a  deadlock  between  traders  and  trade 
unions — Railways  have  very  little  power  left  to  adapt  themselves 
to  circumstances  and  still  less  to  grapple  with  national  emergencies 
— ^Much  better  position  in  this  respect  of  German  railways — Just 
legislation  for  railways  impossible  while  existing  prejudices  and 
hostilities  continue  rampant  in  the  House  of  Commons   .     268-278 

CHAPTER  XXIV 

TO   THE   TRADERS 

Relations  of  railways  and  traders  artificially  complicated  by  political 
and  ofiicial  intervention — Earliest  railway  rates  experimental  and 
necessarily  to  a  large  extent  arbitrary — Afterwards  they  were 
muddled  up  in  the  parliamentary  feuds  of  the  railway  companies 
and  in  their  pooling  schemes — The  Select  Committee  of  1888  on  the 
seven  classes  of  complaints  made  by  traders  against  the  railway 
companies — These  have  since  been  largely  remedied  as  far  as  rates 
and  classifications  are  concerned — The  Consolidating  Act  of  1894 
gave  traders  a  definite  position — Only  a  small  percentage  of  railway 
business  ever  comes  before  the  Railway  Commissioners — Analysis 
of  complaints  and  adjudications  in  the  ten  years  1888  to  1897 — 
More  friendly  tone  toward  railways  adopted  of  late  by  Chambers 
of  Commerce — Important  railway  resolutions  adopted  at  the 
Chambers  of  Commerce  Conference  in  March  1912 — Conciliatory 
speech  by  Sir  Charles  Owens  of  the  London  and  South-Western 
Railway — A  give-and-take  policy  between  railways  and  traders 
the  best  solution  of  the  difficulty — Increased  powers  of  mediation 
might  be  conferred  on  the  Board  of  Trade    .         .         .     279-288 

CHAPTER  XXV 

TO   THE   LOCAL  AUTHORITIES 

Formerly  the  growth  of  rates  and  taxes  one  of  the  chief  grievances  at 
shareholders'  meetings — This  for  a  time  checked  but  now  re- 
appearing— The  large  share  of  railway  earnings  taxed  off  averages 
fully  one  per  cent,  of  dividend — In  return  for  this  disproportionate 
taxation  railways  receive  less  benefit  than  any  other  class  of  tax- 
payers— In  1911  rates  and  taxes  exceeded  five  millions  sterling,  a 
sum  nearly  equal  to  the  coal  bill  of  same  year — The  total  cost  of 
the  locomotive  service,  excluding  repairs  and  renewals,  was  only 
£600,000  more  than  the  rates  and  taxes — Great  increase  during  the 
pa«t  ten  years  under  each  of  these  heads — The  opposition  of  town 
councils,  district  councils  and  even  parish  councils  to  railway  im- 
provements is  becoming  a  mania — Metropolitan  authorities  have 
distinguished  themselves  as  railway  "squeezers  " — Thanks  to 
them,  London  terminal  stations  have  cost  20  or  30  per  cent,  more 
than  they  ought  to  have  done — The  dismal  story  of  the  Liverpool 
Street  Station — Mr.  Gooday's  accoimt  of  how  the  Great  Eastern 
Company  was  blackmailed  for  workmen's  dwellings,  workmen's 
trains  and  all  the  other  fads  of  municipal  philanthropists — So- 
called  cheap  trains  on  suburban  lines  cost  actually  more  to  run 
than  regular  passenger  trains — The  trader,  the  trade  unionist,  the 
municipaliser,  the  nationaliser,  and  the  politician  at  large  are  all 
in    arms    against    the   railway   shareholder    .         .         .     289-297 


xxxii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XXVI 

THE   RAILWAYS   AND   THE   STATE 

The  socialisation  and  nationalisation  bogeys — ^The  personal  factor  in 
industrial  disputes  is  nowadays  more  powerful  than  any  theoretical 
factor — State  control  no  new  idea  in  railway  history — ^Almost  from 
the  beginning  it  has  been  asserted  in  one  form  or  another — ^The 
State  is  now  a  universal  providence — It  could  never  interfere  much 
more  with  the  railways  than  it  does  already — The  real  question  of 
to-day  is  not  how  to  get  an  ideal  system  of  State  railways,  but  how 
to  get  the  best  possible  results  out  of  the  existing  system — If  State 
control  is  to  be  developed  into  nationalisation  it  should  be  non- 
political  and  independent  of  all  outside  dictation,  parliamentary  or 
otherwise — It  would  have  to  be  preceded  by  a  workable  treaty  of 
peace  between  the  railway  companies,  the  traders  and  the  trade 
unionists — An  effective  State  should  be  a  power  of  itself,  something 
above  and  beyond  the  governed — The  Prime  Minister  of  New 
South  Wales  and  the  gas  workers'  strike  in  Sydney — He  declared  the 
issue  to  be  between  the  strikers  and  the  Government — A  State 
powerful  enough  to  arbitrate  between  employers  and  employed 
would  have  to  be  a  virtual  dictator — Not  shareholders  but  railway- 
men  the  greatest  obstacles  to  nationalisation — The  Select  Com- 
mittee of  1838  on  necessary  safeguards  against  railway  monopoly — 
In  1886  Mr.  Grierson  protested  against  the  arbitrary  powers  then 
claimed  (unsuccessfully)  by  the  Board  of  Trade — Can  an  equitable 
and  effective  State  control  be  created  out  of  existing  authorities, 
the  Board  of  Trade  and  the  Railway  Commission  ? — ^Mr.  Wardle, 
M.P.,  on  the  common  interest  of  railway  shareholders  and  railway- 
man in  Government  supervision 298-307 

CHAPTER  XXVII 

NATIONALISATION 

A  many-sided  question :  financial,  political,  commercial  and  sogiaLs-Its 
recent  tendency  to  become  a  special  phase  of  the  universaTclass  war 
— Nationalisation  may  become  a  sheer  necessity  through  the  break- 
down of  existing  organisation — Not  shareholders  or  officials,  but 
railwajnmen,  have  most  to  fear  from  it  —  Ultimate  issue  will  be 
between  railway  rates  and  wages — Under  a  national  regime  traders 
and  employ6s  will  be  natural  enemies  face  to  face  with  each  other — 
Trade  union  policy  inherently  opposed  to  a  progressive  railway 
policy — Recent  labour  agitations  have  all  been  economic  failures 
in  so  far  as  they  have  benefited  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the 
many — The  larger  amount  paid  in  wages  has  been  distributed  among 
a  smaller  niunber  of  men — ^Nationalisation  from  the  State  point  of 
view — The  State  has  first  to  solve  the  road  problem  before  it  can 
venture  to  grapple  with  the  much  larger  railway  problem — The 
grievances  of  traders  against  the  railways  are  largely  due  to  slip- 
shod law-making — Plainer  laws  and  cheaper  courts  are  urgently 
needed  for  the  settlement  of  railway  disputes;— The  Railway  Act  of 
1913  the  latest  and  worst  example  of  political  intervention — ^The 
all-round  advance  in  railway  rates  which  has  resulted  from  it  may 
produce  interminable  disputes  and  controversies — ^Ultimate  national- 
isation a  factor  in  all  future  railway  discussions    .         .     308-320 


BRITISH    RAILWAYS 

BOOK   FIRST— FINANCIAL 
CHAPTER  I 

WHAT  THEY  HAVE   COST 

In  1911  there  were,  according  to  the  annual  report  of 
the  Board  of  Trade,  23,417  miles  of  railways  in  the  United 
Kingdom.  They  were  worked  by  two  hundred  and  fifty 
different  companies  which  had  a  paid-up  capital  of  1324 
millions  sterling.  Fully  one-seventh  of  that  amount  (198 
millions)  was,  however,  nominal,  having  been  added  to 
counterbalance  reductions  in  the  rates  of  interest  or 
dividend.  Nearly  all  the  principal  railway  companies 
have,  at  one  time  or  another,  reorganised  or  consolidated 
parts  of  their  capital.  In  doing  so  Debentures  and 
Preference  stock  carrying  high  rates  of  interest  have 
been  converted  into  new  stocks  bearing  lower  rates  of 
interest.  In  order  to  equalise  the  income  of  the  holders 
with  what  they  previously  received  the  nominal  capital 
has  been  increased.  Thus  when  a  six  per  cent.  Debenture 
yielding  £6  per  annum  was  converted  into  a  new  four 
per  cent.,  £150  of  the  new  stock  had  to  be  given  for  each 
£100  of  the  old. 

About  105  millions  sterling  of  nominal  additions  to 
the  Debenture  and  Preference  stocks  have  been  made  in 
that  way.  Nearly  93  milhons  (£92,700,000)  more  have 
resulted  from  the  process  known  as  *•  stock-splitting." 
When  the  market  prices  of  Ordinary  stocks  become  too 
large  to  be  easily  dealt  in  they  may  be  divided  into 
Preferred  and  Deferred  halves,  or  they  may  be  duplicated. 
The  former  is  the  older  practice,  and  the  chief  examples 


\ 


2^/,\ \y\^ iy: :  feRI$TS$  RAILWAYS 

of  it  are  the  Brighton  and  South-Eastern  splits.  In  these 
cases  £100  of  Ordinary  stock  is  divided  into  £50  Preferred 
and  £50  Deferred  Ordinary.  Of  late  years  splitting 
has  taken  the  Irish  form  of  dupHcation.  For  instance, 
when  Midland  Ordinary,  London  and  South- Western  and 
North  British  stocks  were  spHt,  £100  of  Preferred  and  £100 
of  Deferred  were  issued  for  every  £100  of  the  Ordinary. 
This  process  has  been  carried  to  the  extent  of  creating 
about  93  millions  of  nominal  stock. 

Up  to  the  end  of  1911  the  creations  of  Debenture, 
Preference  and  Ordinary  stock  in  connection  with  con- 
versions and  reorganisations  totalled  £198,100,000. 
Politicians  with  strong  prejudices  and  loose  ideas  of 
finance  sometimes  declaim  against  these  nominal  additions 
to  our  railway  capital  as  "  watered  "  stock.  That  is  not 
true  of  them  in  any  invidious  sense  :  such,  for  instance, 
as  it  would  be  understood  in  by  American  stock-holders. 
They  are  not  "  water,"  but  rather  book  entries.  No  one 
need  be  misled  by  them,  as  every  railway  company  dis- 
tinguishes them  in  its  accounts  from  capital  actually 
paid  up.  They  are  also  stated  separately  in  the  annual 
returns  of  the  Board  of  Trade. 

The  only  occasion  on  which  they  may  have  a  misleading 
effect  is  when  the  cost  per  mile  of  British  railways  is 
being  compared  with  the  cost  per  mile  of  foreign  railways. 
In  this  case  the  nominal  additions  that  have  been  made 
to  our  railway  capital  raise  the  capitaHsation  per  mile 
a  good  deal  higher  than  it  actually  is.  But  the  persons 
who  make  such  comparisons  can  easily  guard  themselves 
against  that  mistake  by  deducting  the  nominal  additions. 
Also  in  making  adjustments  there  are  others  on  the 
opposite  side  to  be  remembered.  A  considerable  set-off 
to  the  so-called  "  water  "  would  result  if  we  could  ascer- 
tain the  total  amount  of  capital  that  has  been  written 
down  or  written  off  altogether  as  lost.  In  drastic  re- 
organisations such  as  the  Great  Eastern  and  the  London, 
Chatham  and  Dover  railways  underwent,  large  amounts 
of  original  capital  were  wiped  out. 

Before  we  could  ascertain  the  actual  effective  cost  of 
our  railways,  many  adjustments  and  quaHfications  would 


WHAT  THEY  HAVE  COST  3 

have  to  be  made  in  the  official  figures  of  the  Board  of 
Trade.  The  nominal  additions  and  reductions  in  their 
capital  accounts  are  only  first  steps  in  a  prolonged  inquiry. 
Apart  from  the  official  values  there  are  market  variations 
to  consider.  Some  railway  stocks  command  high  pre- 
miums, while  many  more  have  fallen  to  heavy  discounts. 
Would  the  market  valuations  of  to-day  not  be  a  safer 
guide  for  us  than  the  par  values  of  the  original  stocks  ? 
This  is  an  interesting  question  awaiting  the  attention 
of  statisticians. 

In  judging  the  actual  cost  of  a  given  railway  as  it 
stands  to-day  attention  has  to  be  paid  to  its  past  history. 
Nothing  could  be  more  illogical  than  to  estimate  two 
such  widely  different  properties  as  the  London  and  North- 
western and  the  London,  Chatham  and  Dover  at  the 
par  values  of  their  stocks.  Not  only  are  they  miles  apart 
in  their  market  prices,  but  one  of  them  has  a  mountain 
of  unearned  interest  standing  against  it,  while  the  other 
has  a  long  unbroken  record  of  substantial  dividends. 
Every  £100  put  into  Chatham  Ordinary  stock  sixty  years 
ago  would  now  amount  at  compound  interest  to  nearly 
£1000.  But  the  unfortunate  owner  could  get  only  £20 
for  it. 

There  is  a  case  of  a  railway  stock  which  has  cost  about 
ten  times  its  nominal  amount.  Happily  there  are  equally 
remarkable  examples  of  an  opposite  sort.  Every  £100 
invested  sixty  years  ago  in  London  and  North- Western 
stock  has  yielded  enough  in  dividends  to  repay  the  whole 
of  the  capital  with  four  per  cent,  interest.  The  good  stock 
has  redeemed  its  original  cost,  while  the  bad  one  has  multi- 
plied its  original  cost  tenfold.  The  necessary  adjustments 
to  cover  these  two  opposite  changes  would  require  a  large 
addition  to  be  made  for  the  one  and  a  large  reduction 
for  the  other.  London  and  North- Western  stock  would 
have  more  than  repaid  itself  and  fair  interest  as  well, 
while  Chatham  Ordinary  would  have  to  be  debited  with 
an  impossible  accumulation  of  arrears. 

But  the  Board  of  Trade  has  to  take  the  nominal  capitals 
as  furnished  by  the  railway  companies  and  treat  them  as 
all  of  equal  value.     It  can  pay  no  regard  to  the  reductio 


4  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

ad  absurdum  of  placing  on  the  same  statistical  level  a  huge 
plus  and  a  huge  minus  quantity.  One  day  perhaps  we 
may  obtain  from  it  detailed  calculations  of  the  market 
values  of  our  railway  stocks  at  the  end  of  each  year. 
These  would  be  a  novel  and  useful  addition  to  its  annual 
reports.  With  their  help  all  persons  interested  in  railway 
stocks,  whether  as  dealers  or  holders,  could  obtain  com- 
prehensive views  of  the  railway  situation  as  a  whole. 

If  existing  statistics  of  railway  capitaMsation  be  very 
imperfect  from  a  general  point  of  view,  they  are  much 
more  so  in  their  individual  parts.  They  are  virtually 
useless  with  reference  to  such  essential  questions  as  cost 
per  mile  of  railway.  All  comparisons  of  that  sort  are 
utterly  misleading.  They  put  one-horse,  single-track  hnes 
on  a  par  with  trunk  lines  having  many  miles  of  four-  and 
six-track  road.  Of  late  railway  statisticians  have  got 
over  this  difficulty  to  some  extent  by  adopting  single- 
track  mileage  as  the  basis  of  their  comparisons.  What 
a  difference  this  makes  may  be  seen  in  the  subjoined 
table  of  line  miles  and  single-track  miles  for  the  railways 
of  the  three  kingdoms  : — 


Line*  and  Single-Track  Mileages  Compared. 


' 

MUes  of 
Line. 

Miles  of 
Single  Track. 

Single  Track 

for  each  mile 

of  Line. 

England  and  Wales         .      .   |        16,200 

Scotland          i         3,815 

Ireland |         3,402 

42,212 
7,773 
4,591 

2-6 
20 
1-35 

!       23,417 

54,576 

2-33 

It  is  obvious  from  the  above  that  comparisons  between 
the  English,  Scottish  and  Irish  railways  in  respect  of 
capitalisation  will  be  much  more  just  as  between  the 
three  countries,  as  well  as  more  instructive,  if  the  mile 
of  single  track  be  adopted  as  our  unit  of  measurement 
in  place  of  the  mile  of  hne.  This  consideration  applies 
still  more  strongly  to  comparisons  between  British  and 
foreign  railways.     In  the  case  of  American  railways  it  is 


WHAT  THEY   HAVE  COST  6 

particularly  important,  such  a  large  proportion  of  their 
mileage  being  single  track,  and  very  indifferent  at  that. 

It  may  be  observed  here  that  in  our  comparisons  all 
mileage  will  be  reduced  to  single  track,  and  in  calculating 
capitalisation  per  mile  all  nominal  additions  will  be 
excluded.  Only  actual  cash  capital  will  be  regarded. 
On  this  basis  the  railway  systems  of  the  three  kingdoms 
compare  as  under  : — 


British  Railway  Capital  less  Nominal  Additions,  1911. 


1 

Total  Capital. 
(Milliona.) 

Nominal 

Portion. 

(Milliona.) 

Net  Caah 

Capital. 

(Millions.) 

England  and  Wales         .      . 

Scotland          

Ireland 

£ 
1,093-2 
185-8 
43-8 

£ 
148-5 
49-3 
0-2 

£ 
944-7 
136-5 

43-6 

1,322-8 

198-0 

1,124-8 

British  Railway  Capital  per  Mile  of  Single  Track,  1911. 


Cash  Capital. 
(Millions.) 

Miles. 
(Single  Track.) 

Per  Mile. 

England  and  Wales   .      .      . 

Scotland          

Ireland 

£ 

944-7 

136-5 

43-6 

42,212 

7,773 
4,591 

£ 

22,380 

17,600 

9,500 

1,124-8 

54,576       1       20,600 

Writers  who  indulge  in  sweeping  generalisations  as  to 
the  excessive  capitalisation  of  British  railways  can,  by 
taking  the  total  capital  inclusive  of  nominal  additions 
(£1,322,800,000)  and  dividing  it  by  the  number  of  miles 
of  line  (23,417),  produce  a  very  high  average  cost  per 
mile.  It  is,  in  short,  close  on  £60,000.  That  is  the 
round  figure  usually  adopted  by  severe  critics,  especially 
foreigners.  But  when  we  eliminate  the  nominal  addi- 
tions and  the  large  proportion  of  two-,  three-  and  four- 
track  lines,  a  much  less  formidable  amount  will  be  arrived 
at.     For  Ireland  the  average  is  little  more  than  £9000 


6  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

per  mile  of  single  track,  and  for  Scotland  it  is  £17,000, 
and  even  for  England  it  is  only  a  trifle  above  £22,000. 

These  widely  divergent  averages  for  the  three  kingdoms 
are  in  themselves  another  warning  against  hasty  general- 
isations. Even  in  such  a  comparatively  small  section  of 
the  globe  as  the  United  Kingdom  general  averages  may 
be  very  misleading.  It  should  be  obvious  at  a  glance 
that  a  railway  system  like  the  Irish,  which  has  cost  only 
£9500  per  mile  of  single  track,  must  have  been  built 
under  very  different  conditions  and  for  a  very  different 
class  of  traffic  from  one  hke  the  English,  which  has  cost 
nearly  three  times  as  much. 

In  England  itself  a  great  diversity  of  railway  building 
may  be  found.  Small  an  area  as  it  is  geographically, 
seven  or  eight  distinct  groups  of  railways  flourish  in  it. 
The  trunk  lines  running  north  and  west  form  the  main 
group,  and  we  deal  with  these  by  themselves.  They  are 
distinguished  by  their  combination  of  goods  and  passenger 
traffic,  the  goods  predominating.  The  southern  lines  are 
sometimes  spoken  of  as  passenger  lines,  their  passenger 
traffic  being  the  most  important.  In  other  districts  of 
England  and  Wales  mineral  traffic  predominates,  and 
we  have  consequently  a  special  group  of  mineral  lines. 
London  itself  has  four  different  railway  services — trunk 
lines,  surburban  lines,  street  railways,  and  undergroimds. 

When  we  inquire  into  the  capitalisation  of  these  various 
systems  the  utmost  diversity  comes  to  light.  In  order 
to  do  justice  to  each  group  it  must  be  taken  separately, 
and  its  distinctive  conditions  carefully  analysed.  At 
every  turn  the  widest  diversities  will  be  foimd  among 
them,  and  the  more  they  are  studied  the  more  striking 
will  be  the  absurdity  of  lumping  them  together  in  statis- 
tical comparisons.  Beginning  with  the  trunk  line  group, 
which  embraces  nine  of  our  largest  and  most  successful 
railways — ^the  London  and  North- Western,  Midland, 
Great  Western,  North-East ern,  Lancashire  and  York- 
shire, Great  Northern,  Great  Eastern,  Great  Central, 
and  London  and  South-Western — a  most  interesting 
study  in  the  science  of  capitalisation  presents  itself. 
These  nine  systems  have  to  account  for  a  good  deal  more 


WHAT  THEY  HAVE  COST 


than  one -half  of  the  railway  capital  of  the  country. 
With  their  respective  shares  of  the  nominal  additions 
they  aggregate  791  millions  sterling,  but  without  these 
they  only  amount  to  658  millions. 

The  nominal  additions  to  their  various  classes  of 
capital — ^Debenture  stock,  Preference  and  Ordinary — 
must  thus  have  been  about  133  millions  sterling.  The 
following  table  indicates  how  they  are  distributed  among 
the  various  lines.  The  Midland  Railway,  it  will  be  seen, 
has  much  the  largest  share  of  super  capital — 73f  millions 
sterling — ^and  the  Great  Western  has  the  smallest.  To 
be  strictly  accurate  the  Great  Western  capital  is  not 
higher,  but  lower,  than  the  actual  money  paid  in,  £742,000 
having  been  written  off.  The  cash  capital  of  the  whole 
group  was  658  millions,  and  the  nominal  additions  made 
at  various  times  aggregated  132|  millions.  This  raised 
the  total  to  its  existing  figure  of  791  millions. 

Trunk  Lines,  1911.    Their  Total  Capitals  less  Nominal 
Additions. 


Total  Capital. 
(OOO'a) 

Nominal. 

Portions. 

(OOO's) 

Cash  Capital. 
(OOO's) 

London  and  North-Western 
Midland 

£ 
126,062 
193,624 
99,028 
80,689 
70,349 
52,898 
64,405 
69,640 
55,430 

18,678 

73,788 

742* 

7,018 

11,473 

478 

2,681 

8,589 

10,904 

£ 
106,374 
119,736 
99,770 
73,671 
68,876 
62,420 
61,824 
61,061 
44,526 

Great  Western 
North- Eastern      .      .      . 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
Great  Central       .     .     . 
Great  Eastern      .     .     . 
Great  Northern    . 
London  and  South -Western 

790,916 

132,767 

658,148 

♦  Capital  written  down. 

Thus  it  appears  that  17  per  cent,  of  the  capitalisation 
of  our  trunk  railways  is  purely  nominal.  It  is  not 
"  water  *'  in  the  American  sense,  but  rather  a  book- 
keeping adjustment.  In  scientific  comparisons  of  cost  of 
construction  it  must  be  ehminated,  and  this  preliminary 
reduction  is  alone  sufficient  to  set  our  railway  capital- 


d 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


isation  in  a  much  more  favourable  light  than  it  is  generally 
presented  in.  Its  significance  becomes  much  more 
apparent  when  expressed  in  mileage  averages,  as  will 
be  seen  in  the  next  table.  Spread  over  12,533  miles  of 
railway,  £132,767,000  represents  £10,600  per  mile,  and 
reduces  the  average  cost  of  our  trunk  lines  from  £63,000 
to  £52,500  per  mile. 


Trtjnk  Lines,  1911.     Nominal  and  Cash  Capitals  Reduced 
TO  Mileage  Averages  (12,533  Miles). 


Nominal 
Capital. 
(000*8) 

Per  Mile. 

Cash 

Capital 
(less  nomi-    Per  Mile. 
nal  portion). 

(OOO's) 

London  and  North-Westem 
Midland 

126,102 
193,524 
99,028 
80,589 
70,349 
62,898 
64,405 
59,640 
55,430 

£ 
63,600 

126,300 
32,900 
46,600 

119,000 
70,000 
48,000 
69,600 
57,500 

106,374 
119,736 
99,770 
73,571 
58,876 
52,420 
51,824 
61,051 
44,526 

£ 
64,100 
78,100 
33,200 
42,600 
99,600 
69,200 
45,800 
59,600 
46,200 

Great  Western 
North-Eastern        .      .      . 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
Great  Central   .... 

Great  Eastern  .... 

Great  Northern 

London  and  South-Westem 

790,965 

63,100 

658,148 

52,500 

It  is  not  alone  the  capitalisation  of  our  railways  that 
has  to  be  adjusted  in  order  to  admit  of  fair  and  equal 
comparisons  with  other  railway  systems;  the  mileage 
has  also  to  be  reduced  to  a  common  level.  Fully  90  per 
cent,  of  the  railway  lines  in  the  United  States  are  single 
track  as  compared  with  45  per  cent,  of  the  British  lines. 
In  other  words,  55  per  cent,  of  our  lines  have  two  or 
more  tracks,  and  some  parts  of  them  as  much  as  eight 
or  ten  tracks.  On  the  Prussian  lines  the  proportion  of 
the  mileage  with  two  or  more  tracks  is  42*3  per  cent., 
and  in  France  it  is  43  per  cent.  All  these  are  so  much 
under  the  British  average  as  to  preclude  fair  comparison. 
The  only  alternative  is  to  reduce  all  the  line  miles  to 
single-track  miles  as  under  : — 


WHAT  THEY  HAVE  COST 


Trunk  Lines,  1911. 


Cash  Capital  peb  Mile  of  Line  and  per 
Mile  of  Single  Track. 


Capital.    M«es  of 
(OOO's)    !    ^'''^^ 

Per 
Mile. 

Miles  of 
Single 
Track. 

Per 
Mile. 

London  and  North- Western 
Midland 

106^374 
119,736 
99,770 
73,571 
58,876 
52,420 
51,824 
51,051 
44,526 

1,966 

1,532 

3,006 

1,728 

591 

757 

1,133 

856 

964 

54,100 
78,100 
33,200 
42,600 
99,600 
69,200 
45,800 
59,600 
46,200 

5,502 
4,852 
6,645 
4,842 
2,194 
2,252 
2,540 
2,655 
2,218 

19,300 
24,700 
15,000 
15,000 
26,800 
23,300 
20,400 
19,200 
20,000 

Great  Western      .      .      . 

North-Eastern 

Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 

Great  Central       .      .      . 

Great  Eastern 

Great  Northern    .      .      . 

London  and  South- Western 

658,148  1  12,533 

52,500 

33,700 

19,500 

A  simple  indication  of  the  comparative  density  of 
traffic  on  a  railway  is  the  proportion  of  single  track  to 
miles  of  line  which  it  exhibits.  In  this  respect  the 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire  stands  highest,  its  proportion 
being  3*7  miles  of  track  for  every  mile  of  line.  The 
Midland  is  second,  with  3*2  miles  of  track  for  every  mile 
of  line;  the  Great  Northern  third,  with  3-1,  and  the 
Great  Central  fourth,  with  3.  Strange  as  it  may  seem, 
the  London  and  North- Western  has  a  small  proportion 
of  multiple  tracks — only  2*8  per  each  mile  of  Hne.  The 
North-Eastern  proportion  is  the  same  as  the  North- 
Western's,  and  the  smallest  of  all  is  the  Great  Western's, 
2*17  of  single  track  for  every  mile  of  line. 

The  trunk-line  group  of  railways  whose  capitalisation 
we  have  been  analysing  is  by  far  the  most  important  in 
the  United  Kingdom.  It  is  also  the  most  typical  of  our 
railway  traffic  as  a  whole.  All  the  other  groups  are 
much  smaller  and  more  specialised,  but  they  are  no  less 
worthy  of  investigation.  They  are  not  only  interesting 
in  themselves,  but  they  throw  light  on  each  other.  Let 
us  take  as  our  next  group  three  typical  passenger  hues — 
those  of  the  south  coast.  As  regards  capitalisation, 
their  chief  peculiarity  is  that  the  nominal  additions  have 
been  very  few,  and  such  as  they  are  they  were  not  made 
voluntarily. 


10 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


The  Brighton  and  the  South-Eastern  Ordinary  stocks 
have  both  been  subjected  to  splitting  schemes,  but  they 
were  genuine  spHts  and  not  duplications,  as  in  the  later 
cases  of  the  Midland,  the  Great  Northern  and  the  North 
British.  The  Chatham  capital  has  had  nominal  additions 
made  to  it  of  another  kind,  in  the  shape  of  stock  issues 
at  a  discount.  Its  disastrous  history  has  inflicted  on  it 
the  invidious  distinction  of  being  the  most  heavily  capital- 
ised steam  railway  in  the  United  Kingdom.  But  all 
three  of  the  southern  lines,  it  will  be  observed,  have  cost 
their  shareholders  a  good  deal  more  per  mile  than  most 
of  the  trunk  lines  did.     The  totals  and  averages  in  1911 


were  : — 


Southern  Lines,  1911.    Their  Average  Cost  per  Mile  of  Line. 


Miles. 

Total  Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Per  MUe. 

South-Eastern      .... 
Chatham 

London  and  Brighton     . 

444 
185 

32,485-0 
29,629-0 

£ 
73,100 
160,000 

629 
454 

62,1140 
29,115-0 

98,700 
64,000 

1,083 

91,2290 

84,200 

Their  Average  Cost  per  Mile  op  Single  Track. 


Miles. 

Cash  Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Per  MUe. 

South-Eastern  and  Chatham 
London  and  Brighton     . 

1,588 
1,234 

£ 
62,1140 
29,1150 

39,000 
23,600 

2,822 

91,2290 

32.300 

For  their  excessive  cost  these  southern  lines  have  not 
the  excuse  that  the  trunk  lines  can  plead,  of  dense  traffic 
necessitating  a  large  amount  of  multiple  track.  Their 
1,083  miles  of  line  reduced  to  single  track  make  only 
2,822  miles,  or  2*6  miles  for  every  mile  of  line.  The 
Brighton  average  (2*7)  is  a  shade  better  than  that  of 


WHAT  THEY  HAVE  COST 


11 


the  South-Eastern  and  Chatham  system,  which  is  only  2*5. 
Consequently  all  the  southern  capitalisations  are  high 
even  when  reduced  to  terms  of  single  track.  Not  one  of 
them  in  the  above  list  but  is  well  above  the  average  of 
the  trunk  lines,  namely,  £19,500  per  mile. 

From  the  southern  passenger  lines  we  turn  now  to  an 
entirely  difiFerent  class,  the  mineral  lines.  Nine  of  them 
have  been  selected  to  form  a  typical  group,  and  they 
are  as  representative  in  their  way  as  the  nine  trunk  Unes. 
They  will  be  put  through  a  similar  process  of  comparative 
analysis,  beginning  with  the  disentanglement  of  their 
actual  from  their  nominal  capitals  : — 

Mineral  Lines,  1911.    Their  Nominal  and  Cash  Capitals. 


Total  Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Nominal 
Portion. 
(OOO's) 

Cash  Capital. 
(OOO's) 

North  Staffordshire 
Taff  Vale  .     .     . 
Hull  and  Barnsley 
Cardiff       .     .      . 
Barry  .... 
Rhymney 
Furness     .      .     . 
Brecon  and  Merthyr 
Neath  and  Brecon 

£ 
10,693 
9,821 
8,322 
6,333 
6,283 
2,766 
2,818 
2,086 
1,337 

£ 
1,891 
3,764 

383 
1,458 

631 
1,044 

331* 

8,802 
6,067 
8,322 
6,960 
4,826 
2,136 
1,774 
2,086 
1,668 

60,468 

8,830 

41,628 

Capital  written  off. 


Having  ascertained  the  cash  capital  that  has  been  put 
into  these  mineral  lines,  and  shown  how  it  compares  with 
the  nominal  capital  charged  against  them  in  the  com- 
panies' accounts,  we  can  now  carry  the  comparison  a  step 
further  and  work  out  the  mileage  averages.  These  have 
to  be  taken  first  on  the  nominal  capital,  and  secondly  on  the 
actual  capital.  The  results  are  surprisingly  similar  to 
those  obtained  from  the  trunk-line  figures.  In  this  case 
the  average  cost  per  mile  is  £11,000  lower  on  the  actual 
than  on  the  nominal  capital : — 


12 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


Mineral  Lines,  1911.    Nominal  and  Cash  Capitals  Reduced  to 
Mileage  Averages  (795  Miles). 


Nominal 
Capital. 
(OOO's) 


Per   Mile. 


Cash 
Capital. 

(Less 

Nominal 

Additions.) 

(OOO's) 


Per  Mile. 


North  Staffordshire 
Tall  Vale   .      .      . 
Hull  and  Barnsley 
Cardiff    .... 
Barry   .      . 
Rhymney 
Furness 

Brecon  and  Merthyr 
Neath  and  Brecon 


£ 
10,693 
9,821 
8,322 
6,333* 
6,283* 
2,766 
2,818 
2,085 
1,337 


£ 
49,500 
79,200 
91,450 


54,200 
21,000 
35,340 
33,400 


£ 
8,802 
6,067 
8,322 
5,950* 
4,825* 
2,135 
1,774 
2,085 
l,668t 


£ 
40,700 
49,000 
91,460 


41,860 
13,240 
35,340 
41,700 


60,458        63,600       41,628 


52,360 


♦  Chiefly  docks.  t  £330,000  written  off. 

Still  pursuing  the  same  analjrtic  method  that  was 
applied  to  the  trunk-line  group,  we  have  now  to  distin- 
guish the  cost  per  mile  of  single  track  from  the  cost  per 
mile  of  line.  For  the  sake  of  extra  clearness  two  sub- 
groups  have   been   made — one   English   and   the   other 

Mineral  Lines,  1911.    Cash  Capital  per  Mile  of  Line  and 
per  Mile  op  Single  Track. 


Cash 
Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Miles  of 
Line. 

Capital 
per  MUe. 

MUes  of 
Single 
Track. 

Capital 
per  MUe 
of  Track. 

North  Staffordshire . 
Hull  and  Barnsley 
Furness 

TaffVale       .... 

Cardiff 

Barry       ..... 
Rhymney      .... 
Brecon  and  Merthyr 
Neath  and  Brecon   . 

£ 
8,802 
8,322 
1,774 

216 

91 

134 

£ 
40,700 
91,450 
13,240 

501 
295 
369 

£ 
17,670 

28,200 
48,000 

18,898 

441 

42,800 

1,165 

16,200   1 

6,067 

5,950* 

4,825* 

2,135 

2,085 

1,668 

124 
14 
66 
61 
59 
40 

49,000 

41,860 
35,340 
41,700 

387 
129 
287 
162 
107 
64 

15,670 

13,200 
19,500 
30,900 

22,730 

354 

64,200 

1,126 

20,200 

Including  docks. 


WHAT  THEY  HAVE  COST 


13 


Welsh.  The  former  includes  three  of  the  best-known 
mineral  lines  in  England,  and  the  second  embraces  half-a- 
dozen  typical  Welsh  lines.  In  both  sets  of  averages  the 
Welsh  appear  to  be  much  higher  than  the  English,  an 
anomaly  which  explains  itself  when  we  remember  that 
a  number  of  the  Welsh  lines,  such  as  Cardiff  and  Barry, 
are  dock  as  well  as  railway  undertakings. 

The  metropolitan  railway  service  is  a  vast  and  unwieldy 
subject  which  had  best  be  dealt  with  by  itself.  Most  of  the 
metropolitan  lines  being  now  electrified,  their  methods  and 
results  cannot  be  closely  compared  with  those  of  steam 
railways — another  reason  for  separate  treatment.  We 
pass  on,  therefore,  to  the  Scottish  railways,  of  which 
half-a-dozen  may  be  selected  as  a  tj^ical  group.  Their 
nominal  capital,  as  shown  below,  amounts  to  176  miUions, 
of  which  fully  49  millions,  or  28  per  cent.,  is  due  to 
duplication  of  stocks.  This  is  nearly  double  the  English 
percentage  (17),  and  when  eliminated  it  leaves  only  127 
millions  of  actual  cash  capital : — 


Scottish  Links,  1911.     Their  Nominal  and  Cash  Capitals. 


Total  Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Nominal 
Portion. 

Cash  Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Caledonian 

Glasgow  and  South- Western 

Highland 

North  British       .... 
Great  North  of  Scotland       . 

70,578-2 
24,873-7 

6,871-1 
66,387-0 

7,638-6 

£ 

20,518-8 

7,270-0 

19,4180 
2,110-6 

£ 
50,059-4 
17,603-7 

6,8711 
46,969-0 

5,528-0 

176,348-6 

49,317-4 

127,031-2 

As  with  the  preceding  groups,  we  have  next  to  ascertain 
the  mileage  averages  of  both  classes  of  capital — the 
nominal  and  the  actual. 

In  Scotland  the  expansion  of  railway  capital  by  nominal 
additions  for  financial  reasons  has  been  carried  much 
further  than  in  England.  It  appears  to  have  been  the 
headquarters  of  the  stock  spHtters  and  dupHcators.  Their 
additions  to  cash  capital  averaged  £13,300  for  every  mile 


14 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


Scottish  Lines,  1911.    Nominal  and  Cash  Capitals  Reduced  to 
Mn-KAGB  Averages  (3,695  Miles). 

Nominal 
Capital 
(OOO's) 

Per  Mile. 

Cash 
Capital 
(OOO's) 

Per  MUe. 

Caledonian 

Glasgow  and  South- Western 
Great  North  of  Scotland  .      . 

Highland 

North  British 

70,578 

24,874 

7,638 

6,871 

66,387 

65,800 
63,400 
23,000 
14,100 
60,000 

£ 

60,059-4 

17,603-7 

6,5280 

6,8711 

46,9690 

£ 
46,700 
37,700 
16,600 
14,170 
35,100 

176,348 

47,700 

127,031-2 

34,400 

of  line  as  against  £10,500  per  mile  on  the  trunk  lines  and 
£11,000  per  mile  on  the  mineral  lines.  So  far  these  calcu- 
lations have  referred  to  line  miles,  but  the  more  correct 
basis  of  single-track  miles  has  now  to  be  substituted.  It 
furnishes  the  following  averages  : — 


Scottish  Lines,  1911.    Cash  Capital  pee  Mile  of  Link  and 
per  Mile  op  Single  Track. 


Cash 
Capital. 
(000-8) 

Miles  of 
Line. 

Per 
Mile. 

Miles  of 
Single 
Track. 

Per 
Mile. 

Caledonian 

Glasgow  and  South  Western 
Great  North  of  Scotland 

Highland 

North  British       .... 

£ 

60,059 

17,604 

6,628 

6,871 

46,969 

1,072 
466 
333 
485 

1,339 

46,700 
37,700 
16,600 
14,170 
35,100 

2,713 

1,104 

623 

636 

2,662 

£ 
18,460 
15,940 
10,670 
10,800 
17,700 

127,031 

3.695 

34,400 

7,628 

16,650 

These  various  eliminations  and  adjustments  have 
brought  us  down  at  last  to  a  comparatively  reasonable 
level  of  actual  cost.  It  is  one  on  which  we  may  take  our 
stand  and  face  comparison  in  this  respect  with  the  railways 
of  most  other  countries.  Undoubtedly  there  has  been  a 
great  deal  of  unwise  and  unprofitable  expenditure  in  the 
building  up  of  every  railway  system — of  which  more 
hereafter — but  it  has  been  by  no  means  so  prodigal  as  is 
generally  assumed,  and  when  spread  over  a  large  mileage 


WHAT  THEY  HAVE  COST 


15 


it  shrinks  rapidly  in  importance.  In  the  Irish  lines,  which 
come  next  under  review,  there  is  little  or  no  trace  of  it. 
Their  capital  is  almost  entirely  free  from  duplication  and 
nominal  additions.  The  half-dozen  lines  which  are  to 
serve  us  as  representative  examples  of  Irish  railway 
finance  have,  as  will  be  seen  below,  an  aggregate  capital 
of  40J  millions  sterHng,  and  all  the  water  to  it  is  under  a 
quarter  of  a  million.  Nominal  and  actual  capital  are  so 
nearly  ahke  that  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  distinguish 
their  respective  mileage  averages. 


Irish  Likes,  1911.    Nominal  and  Cash  Capitals  Reduced  to 
Averages  per  Mile  of  Line. 


Nominal 
Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Per  Mile 
of  Line. 

Cash 
Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Per  Mile 
of  Line. 

Belfast  and  County  Down    . 
Dublin  and  South-Eastern   . 
Great  Northern  of  Ireland    . 
Great  Southern  and  Western 
Midland  Great  Western  .      . 
Midland  (Irish  Section)*.      . 

1,336-9 
3,403-3 

8,726-8 

13,986-0 

6,544-8 

6,664-4 

£ 
16,700 
21,110 
15,560 
12,500 
12,100 
25,300 

£ 
1,336-9 
3,464-9 
8,458-3 
13,986-0 
6,544-8 
6,654-4 

£ 
16,700 
21,500 
15,000 
12,500 
12,100 
25,300 

40,652-2 

14,800 

40,445*3 

14,800 

Irish  Lines,  1911.    Their  Cash  Capitals  per  Mile  of  Line 
AND  PER  Mile  of  Single  Track. 


Cash 
Capital 
(OOO's) 

MUes'of 
Line. 

Per 
Mile. 

MUes  of 

Single 

Track. 

Per 
Mile. 

Belfast  and  County  Down      . 
Dublin  and  South-Eastern     . 
Great  Northern  of  Ireland     . 
Great  Southern  and  Western 
Midland  Great  Western    .     . 
Midland  (Irish  Section)  *       . 

1,337 
3,465 
8,458 
13,986 
6,545 
6,654 

80 
161 
561 
1,121 
638 
263 

16,700 
21,500 
15,000 
12,500 
12,100 
25,300 

124 
217 

827 

1,637 

785 

364 

10,800 
16,000 
10,260 
9,000 
8,330 
18,280 

40,445 

2,724 

14,800 

3,854 

10,600 

*  The  English  Midland  Railway. 


16 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


The  above  five  typical  groups  of  British  railways  may 
now  be  brought  into  one  general  view  in  order  to  show 
their  range  of  capitalisation,  their  various  proportions 
of  nominal  and  actual  capital,  and  their  average  cost  per 
mile  of  line  and  of  single  track.  As  a  rule  they  differ 
widely  in  each  of  these  respects.  The  only  two  groups 
that  approximate  as  regards  cost  are  the  trunk  and  the 
mineral  lines.  These  it  will  be  seen  are  very  similar  in 
their  average  cost  per  mile  both  of  line  and  of  single  track. 
(Trunk  lines  £63,100  per  mile  of  line  and  £19,500  per  mile 
of  track  and  Mineral  lines  £63,500  and  £21,100  respec- 
tively.)— 


Five  Representative  Groups  of  British  Railways,  1911. 
Their  Capitals  Analysed. 


MUes. 

Cash 
Capital. 

Nominal 
Additions. 

Total 
Capital. 

Trunk  Lines  (9)       ... 
Per  mile  of  line  .      .      . 
Per  mile  of  single  track . 

Southern  Passenger  Lines 
Per  mile  of  line 
Per  mile  of  single  track . 

Mineral  Lines 
Per  mile  of  line   . 
Per  mile  of  single  track . 

Scottish  Lines   .... 
Per  mile  of  line  . 
Per  mile  of  single  track . 

Irish  Lines 

Per  mile  of  line 

Per  mile  of  single  track . 

12,533 
33,700 

£ 
658,148,000 
62,500 
19,500 

£ 
132,767,000 
10,500 
4,000 

£ 
790,915,200 
63,100 
23,500 

1,083 

2,822 

91,027,000 
84,000 
32,300 

202,000* 

91,229,000 
84,000 
32,300 

795 
2,291 

41,628,000 
52,360 
18,200 

8,830,000 

11,100 

3,800 

50,458,000 
63,000 
22,000 

3,695 

7,628 

127,031,200 
34,400 
16,650 

49,317,400 
13,300  • 

6,500 

176,348,600 
47,700 
23,150 

2,724 
3,854 

40,445,300 
14,800 
10,550 

206,900* 

40,652,200 
14,900 
10,550 

Written  down. 


CHAPTER  II 

WHY  THEY  HAVE   COST  SO   MUCH 

The  appearance  of  excessive  cost  from  which  the 
credit  of  British,  railways  has  so  long  suffered  is,  we  have 
seen,  not  altogether  well  grounded.  By  adopting  proper 
methods  of  comparison  with  other  railway  systems  it 
has  been  considerably  reduced.  Nevertheless,  enough 
remains  to  justify  to  a  certain  extent  the  charge  so  often 
made  against  our  railways  of  having  been  extravagantly 
built  and  financed.  This  charge  does  not  lie  so  much 
against  individual  railways — though  there  is  much  more 
ground  for  it  in  some  cases  than  in  others — as  against 
the  system  and  the  general  policy  which  has  characterised 
them  from  the  outset. 

The  specific  causes  of  excess  in  capitalisation  are  varied 
as  well  as  numerous.  They  have  sprung  from  many 
different  sources,  and  many  different  factors  in  the 
railway  world  are  responsible  for  them.  From  the 
Imperial  Parliament  which  sits  in  judgment  on  every 
railway  bill  down  to  the  latest  labour  agitator,  all  who 
have  had  to  do  with  our  railways  have  helped  consciously 
or  otherwise  to  render  them  costly.  Often  as  much 
has  had  to  be  spent  on  obtaining  parliamentary  powers 
as  in  less  lawyer-ridden  regions  would  build  and  equip 
a  railway.  Several  years  ago  (1904)  Mr.  Acworth  calcu- 
lated that  the  cost  of  preliminary  surveys  and  parlia- 
mentary expenses  had  averaged  £4,000  per  mile  on  the 
then  existing  22,000  miles  of  railway  in  the  United 
Kingdom.  At  that  rate  nearly  90  millions  sterling  would 
have  been  swallowed  up  in  preparatory  work  before 
a  sod  had  been  turned  in  actual  construction. 

Road-bed,     terminals    and     buildings    Mr.     Acworth 

c  17 


18  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

estimated  at  800  millions  sterling,  or  £36,500  per  mile, 
and  rolling  stock  at  150  millions,  or  £7,000  per  mile.  In 
addition  there  had  been  a  large  expenditure  on  docks, 
steamboats,  hotels  and  other  midertakings  outside  of 
proper  railway  business.  The  rather  melancholy  con- 
clusion to  which  these  figures  lead  us  is  that  not  more 

/^  than  two-thirds  of  the  capital  expenditure  on  our  railway 
system  "  went  into  the  road,"  as  the  Americans  say. 
And  what  did  go  in  was  not  always  well  or  wisely  spent. 
In  human  affairs  it  would  be  more  than  any  one  could 
expect  that  hundreds  of  millions  of  money  could  be  spent 
by  an  excited  crowd  of  railway  promoters  without  a 
good  many  mistakes,  to  say  nothing  of  frauds  and 
swindles. 

The  railway  pioneers  of  eighty  years  ago — say  from 

y^  1832  to  1846 — were  boomers  who  had  to  pay  boom  prices 
for  everything  they  bought.  Their  surveyors,  their  en- 
gineers, their  solicitors,  their  parliamentary  counsel  had 
all  to  be  highly  feed.  Every  foot  of  land  they  needed 
had  to  be  bought  at  penal  prices.  All  the  materials 
they  used  went  steadily  up  in  value  as  the  demand  for 
them  increased.  Everybody  who  had  a  chance  to  fleece 
them  did  it  without  compunction.  They  had  always 
the  convenient  excuse  that  the  railways  fleeced  them  in 
return.  The  first  generation  of  railway  builders  and 
users  were  continually  recriminating  thus  on  each  other. 
The  Royal  Commission  of  1865-6  had  among  its 
members  the  parent  of  the  penny  post,  Sir  Rowland  Hill. 
He  sympathised  strongly  with  the  railways  and  held  that 
they  had  been  very  shabbily  treated.  In  a  Minority 
Report  which  he  submitted  he  deplored  the  very  poor 
financial  results  they  had  so  far  achieved,  and  thus 
enumerated  some  of  the  principal  causes : — 

"  Neither  can  it  be  said  that  railway  proprietors  have 
been  consoled  under  their  grievous  disappointment  by 
public  gratitude,  their  services  being  little  commended, 
while  their  failures  are  visited  with  severe  animadversion 
and  made  the  ground  of  a  heavy  penalty.     It  should  not 

.    .be  forgotten  that  the  very  permission  to  construct  a 
X^railway  is  bought  at  a  high  price,  parliamentary  expenses 


WHY  THEY  HAVE  COST  SO  MUCH         19 

being  heavy,  the  demand  for  land  and  buildings  often 
IS  exorbitant.  Agricultural  land  in  Mr.  Bidder's  opinion 
is  paid  for  on  the  average  at  four  times  its  agricultural 
value.  Again,  while,  in  common  with  the  owners  of 
other  public  vehicles,  railway  companies  are  taxed  by 
the  State,  their  lines,  unlike  the  old  roads,  are  heavily 
rated  by  every  parish  they  traverse,  so  that  in  some  rural 
districts  a  railway  company,  though  perhaps  on  the  one 
hand  reheving  the  parish  of  much  pauperism  by  giving 
profitable  employment  to  the  peasantry,  and  on  the 
other  hand  lightening  the  pressure  on  the  rates  by 
increasing  the  value  of  the  property  on  which  they  are 
levied,  is  yet  made  to  defray  in  a  direct  form  half  the 
parochial  expenditure.  In  fine,  railway  companies  have 
been  made  to  feel  in  the  severest  manner  that  the  justice 
which  society  observes  towards  individuals  is  seldom 
shown  towards  a  corporation,  a  loss  distributed  amongst 
many  being  too  often  regarded  as  in  effect  no  loss  at  all.*' 
Sir  Rowland  was  not  a  believer  in  joint  stock  ownership 
of  railways.  He  advocated  a  policy,  which  was  then 
being  applied  to  the  Indian  railways,  of  Government 
ownership  combined  with  joint  stock  administration. 
He  also  favoured  the  Prussian  system  of  dividing  the 
country  into  railway  districts,  each  district  to  have  its 
own  administration  and  rate  schedules.  Sir  Edward 
Watkin  and  Mr.  Allport,  the  then  General  Manager  of 
the  Midland,  shared  his  views  as  to  "  districting,"  and 
quite  recently  they  have  found  an  echo  among  the 
railway  authorities  of  to-day. 

On  another  point  Sir  Rowland  Hill  was  an  outspoken 

. /champion  of  the  early  railways.     He  maintained  that 

l^many  of  their  mistakes  and  the  consequent  losses  were 

'^'due  to  bad  law-making.     In  his  separate  report  for  the 

Select  Committee  of  1865-6  the  following  strong  passage 

occurs  : — 

.  "  That  while  railways  have  notoriously  conferred 
enormous  benefits  on  the  public,  at  the  same  time  greatly 
enhancing  the  value  of  the  land  and  other  fixed  property, 
the  general  result  to  those  whose  capital  and  energy  have 
produced  this  beneficial  change  has  been  unsatisfactory 


20  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

and  too  often  disastrous.  Further,  that  with  every 
allowance  for  bad  management  in  the  companies  them- 
selves, much  of  this  loss  must  be  attributed  to  erroneous 
legislation." 

When  this  was  written,  nearly  half  a  centur^^  ago, 
many  flagrant  examples  of  the  bad  effects  of  over  legis- 
lation for  railways  had  already  come  to  light.  The 
muddle  produced  at  London  Bridge  by  two  distinct 
railways  being  tied  up  together  in  one  terminal  station 
was  entirely  due  to  the  over  caution  of  the  Select  Com- 
mittees who  sat  on  the  various  schemes  for  lines  to  the 
south  coast.  The  promoters  of  the  Brighton  Railway 
proposed  to  have  their  terminus  where  the  Oval  is  now, 
but  the  Select  Committee  insisted  on  their  coming  up  to 
London  Bridge  and  sharing  the  station  already  estab- 
lished there  by  the  Blackwall  and  the  Dover  lines.  Not 
only  so,  but  they  had  to  make  joint  use  of  the  Dover 
Company's  rails  all  the  way  down  to  Redhill.  Every 
one  knows  what  a  legacy  of  conflict  and  confusion  this 
arbitrary  arrangement  produced.  It  must  have  cost  the 
Brighton  and  South-Eastern  companies  millions  each. 

The  continual  fear  of  the  Parliamentary  Committees 
who  had  the  virtual  planning  of  our  railway  system 
was  that  there  would  not  be  traffic  enough  to  go  round. 
Their  first  thought,  when  a  new  scheme  came  before 
them,  was  that  it  might  not  be  able  to  earn  decent  divi- 
dends, and  the  poor  shareholders  might  consequently 
be  left  in  the  lurch.  In  order  to  guard  against  such  risks, 
neighbouring  railways  were  required  to  work  together 
as  far  as  possible.  Joint  stations  were  always  recom- 
mended in  populous  districts  where  sites  were  expensive. 
Joint  ownership  of  urban  lines  was  encouraged,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Metropolitan  and  Great  Western  railways. 
Most  of  the  trunk  lines  had  to  give  each  other  running 
powers  over  their  surburban  sections. 

Twenty  years  ago  it  was  a  common  thing  to  find  a  South 
Eastern  train  picking  up  stray  passengers  at  Highgate 
or  Enfield.  Great  Northern  trains  returned  the  com- 
pliment by  wandering  in  some  mysterious  way  on  to 
the  South-Eastern    main  line.     Similar    reciprocity  was 


WHY  THEY  HAVE   COST  SO  MUCH         21 

practised  by  the  Brighton  Company  with  the  Great 
Northern  and  the  Midland.  Running  powers  were 
exercised  so  freely  in  the  metropolitan  area  that  loco- 
motives were  as  frequently  on  foreign  lines  as  on  their 
own.  All  this,  instead  of  being  economical,  as  the 
Parliamentary  Committees  thought  it  would  be,  proved 
wasteful  and  obstructive.  It  has  happily  now  been 
given  up,  but  while  it  lasted  it  was  a  fine  example  of 
railway  economies  and  reciprocities  that  went  wrong. 

It  must,  however,  be  said  for  the  Parliamentary  Com- 
mittees that  they  were  not  the  only  short-sighted  people 
who  assisted  at  the  birth  of  our  British  railways.  The 
professional  railway  men  were  not  much  wider  in  their 
outlook  than  the  political  amateurs.  Short-sightedness 
was  an  almost  universal  misfortune  of  the  pioneer  rail- 
ways, and  no  one  would  acknowledge  that  more  readily 
than  the  railway  managers  of  to-day,  whose  life  is  often 
a  long  struggle  to  make  up  for  the  omissions  of  years  ago. 
Their  heaviest  and  most  costly  work  is  dong  things 
wliich  could  have  been  much  easier  and  more  cheaply 
done  by  predecessors  long  dead  and  forgotten. 

The  truth  is,  that  not  one  of  our  railway  pioneers  had 
the  faintest  conception  of  the  ultimate  possibilities  of 
the  new  method  of  transportation.  It  only  dawned  on 
them  gradually,  and  in  looking  back  at  lost  opportunities. 
They  regarded  the  steam  road  from  a  narrow^  point  of 
view.  It  was  the  passenger  business  they  coveted  most. 
All  the  long-distance  lines  were  specially  designed  for 
passenger  traffic.  Merchandise,  minerals  and  live  stock 
were  after-thoughts.  In  order  to  provide  for  them  the 
original  plans  had  to  be  recast,  additional  rails  to  be  laid, 
stations  to  be  enlarged,  and  the  way  and  works  to  be 
strengthened.  Much  of  the  early  work  had  consequently 
to  be  done  twice  or  three  times  over. 

Short-sightedness  is  a  negative  fault  not  to  be  too 
severely  judged  in  a  new  industry  of  such  tremendous 
magnitude  as  railway  transportation.  But  there  may 
have  been  others  of  a  positive  kind.  The  policy  pursued 
by  our  railway  managers  may  have  tended  to  aggravate 
capital  expenditure.     It  had  for  many  years  been  their 


22  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

proud  boast  that  they  never  competed  in  rates,  but  only 
in  "pubhc  facilities."  This  is  a  very  pretty  phrase 
which  sounds  well  and  looks  innocent,  but  it  may  cover 
any  amount  of  foolish  expenditure.  A  London  manager. 
Sir  J.  C.  Owen  of  the  London  and  South-Western  Railway, 
has  given  the  following  pithy  summary  of  its  effects  in 
practice : — 

"  Competition  as  to  service  takes  the  form  of  : — 

1.  An  unnecessary  number  of  trains. 

2.  The  provision  of  expensive  and  luxurious  rolling 
stock,  more  particularly  as  regards  sleeping  cars,  for  which 
in  this  country  no  adequate  charge  has  ever  been  made. 

3.  An  unnecessary  acceleration  of  trains — 

(a)  By  the   elimination   of  stops   at   non-competitive 

stations. 
(6)  The  costly  process  of  making  duplicate  lines  to 

cut  across  country  with  the  sole  object  of  reducing 

the    through    distance    as   compared    with    the 

competing  line. 

(c)  The  construction  of  more  powerful  engines  which 

of  ten  involves  the  relaying  of  the  line  with  heavier 
material  and  the  reconstruction  of  bridges. 

(d)  The  widening  of  existing  lines  with  alteration  of 

alignment,  and  the  construction  and  manning  of 
additional  signal-boxes. 

Thus  competition  in  "  public  facilities,"  or  as  it  is 
sometimes  called,  "  superiority  of  service,"  involves  a 
large  amount  of  capital  expenditure  as  well  as  of  revenue 
expenditure.  The  first  three  paragraphs  in  the  above 
summary  relate,  it  will  be  seen,  to  working  expenses,  but 
the  last  three,  which  are  the  most  important  of  all,  de- 
scribe how  capital  may  be  wasted  on  so-called  improve- 
ments and  accelerations. 

In  one  of  the  academic  but  interesting  discussions  on 
railway  statistics  which  are  provided  at  long  intervals 
by  the  Royal  Statistical  Society  the  writer  ventured  to 
express  what  was  then  considered  a  very  heretical  opinion 
on  this  subject.     Mr.  C.  L.  Edwards,  the  chief  accoun- 


WHY  THEY  HAVE  COST  SO  MUCH         23 

tant  of  the  Great  Northern  Railway,  had  presented  a  very- 
strong  plea  for  the  railways,  contrasting  their  great 
services  to  the  community  with  the  scant  consideration 
which  they  received  on  all  hands.  The  writer,  in  reply, 
pointed  out  that  in  one  respect  the  community  had 
treated  the  railways  only  too  generously.  It  had  always 
been  too  ready  to  lend  them  money  for  capital  expenditure 
which  often  proved  unprofitable. 

"  In  1860,"  he  said,  "  when  the  main  lines  of  the 
country  had  been  nearly  all  built,  the  average  capital- 
isation was  about  £33,000  per  mile.  In  1906,  when 
practically  nothing  had  been  added  except  feeders  and 
the  little  spur  lines  which  railway  companies  were  so 
fond  of  running  into  each  other,  the  average  had  been 
raised  to  £55,800  per  mile.  Twenty  thousand  pounds  per 
mile  had  been  added  to  the  capitahsation  of  the  main 
lines.  How  did  that  come  about  ?  It  was  simply  be- 
cause the  railway  companies  had  found  it  so  easy  to 
borrow  money.  Their  largest  expenditure  of  capital  did 
not  occur  when  they  were  building  the  greatest  amount 
of  new  mileage;  it  always  happened  when  they  could 
borrow  money  cheaply.  The  expenditure  was  not  so 
much  on  extensions  as  on  so-called  improvements.  This 
evil,  be  believed,  was  largely  due  to  the  fallacy  with  which 
they  started  in  early  days,  when  their  motto  was  that 
English  railways  did  not  compete  in  rates  but  in  facilities. 
When  he  first  began  to  study  railway  questions  he  always 
heard  that  the  English  railways  were  much  more  sensible 
than  the  American  ones  in  religiously  avoiding  rate  wars, 
but  it  now  seemed  to  him  that  it  might  have  been  better 
for  the  shareholders  to  have  competed  in  rates  rather 
than  in  facilities.  Our  railway  managers  would  then  have 
had  to  rack  their  brains  a  little  in  order  to  conduct  their 
traffic  as  cheaply  as  possible,  whereas  competing  in 
facilities  simply  gave  them  a  free  hand  to  spend  money.'* 

The  law  of  diminishing  return  on  new  capital  invested 
in  railways  can  be  traced  back  to  an  early  period  in  their 
history.  From  1873  onward  it  became  very  pronounced 
in  its  effects.  In  that  year  the  aggregate  capital  expen- 
diture was  £669,047,000,  and  the  average  return  obtained 


24  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

was  4-59,  or  practically  5  per  cent.  Li  the  succeeding 
fifteen  years  fresh  capital  expenditure  was  made  to  the 
amount  of  £276,375,000.  If  that  money  had  been 
invested  otherwise  it  might  have  earned  at  least  4  per 
cent.,  or  £11,055,000  a  year.  But  the  actual  increase 
in  the  net  receipts  of  the  railways  was  only  £8,143,000. 
Some  allowance  may  have  to  be  made  for  nominal  addi- 
tions to  capital  during  the  period,  but  the  bulk  of  the 
new  expenditure  was  in  "  improvements." 

*'  Public  facilities  "  and  "  universal  providing  "  have 
been  the  special  stumbling-blocks  of  the  British  railway 
manager.  Instead  of  concentrating  all  his  attention  and 
his  energy  on  his  proper  business — rapid  and  economical 
transportation — ^he  has  encumbered  liimseK  with  acces- 
sories which  were  either  unnecessary  or  better  adapted 
for  separate  treatment.  He  has  disdained  the  help  of 
express  companies  for  his  parcel  traffic,  of  Pullman  com- 
panies for  his  sleeping  and  dining  cars,  and  of  private 
builders  for  his  rolling  stock.  Latterly  he  has  begun  to 
take  the  station  book-stalls  and  the  advertising  into 
his  own  hands.  Such  an  omnivorous  policy  of  course 
involves  proportionate  expenditure  of  capital. 

First-class  American  roads  seldom  encumber  themselves 
with  *'  side  shows."  These  are  all  farmed  out  to  com- 
panies like  the  Pullman  and  the  Adams  express,  which 
specialise  in  such  undertakings.  Neither  is  it  the  custom 
in  America  to  have  immense  engine  works  and  car-building 
shops.  Most  kinds  of  rolling  stock  can  be  bought  cheaper 
from  outside  makers  than  they  can  be  built  on  the 
premises.  Not  only  is  there  a  great  saving  in  money  by 
this  means,  but  costly  failure  and  needless  anxieties  are 
avoided.  The  head  of  the  locomotive  department  stipulates 
for  engines  to  do  each  particular  class  of  work,  and  does 
not  certify  for  them  until  he  has  satisfied  himself  that 
they  can  do  it. 

Apart  from  their  natural  advantages  of  cheaper  land, 
simpler  permanent  way  and  less  costly  terminals,  the 
Americans  have  had  the  advantage  of  us  in  confining 
themselves  to  a  much  more  limited  range  of  service. 
This  is  one  of  the  secrets  of  their  much  lighter  capitahsa- 


WHY  THEY  HAVE  COST  SO  MUCH         25 

tion  per  mile.  The  extent  of  the  saving  would  be  difficult 
indeed  to  calculate.  It  has  been,  however,  an  important 
factor  in  keeping  down  the  average  cost  per  mile  of 
American  roads.  With  the  Canadian  roads  it  has  been 
somewhat  different.  They  follow  the  British  practice, 
and  aim  at  being  universal  providers  for  their  passengers. 
But  some  of  them  have  had  other  advantages  which 
enabled  them  to  keep  down  their  capitalisation  and  show 
correspondingly  larger  returns  on  their  stocks. 

The  annual  report  of  the  Canadian  Pacific  Railway  for 
1911-12  has  been  issued  while  this  chapter  was  being 
written.  It  shows  gross  earnings  of  $123,319,000  on  a 
total  capital  of  $440,000,000  (comm^on  stock  $180,000,000, 
debenture  and  preference  stocks  $260,000,000).  This 
gives  an  average  of  28  per  cent,  of  gross  earnings  to  total 
capital.  The  net  was  $44,402,000,  or  fully  10  per  cent,  on 
the  whole  440  millions  of  stock  and  bonds.  After  de- 
ducting $10,525,000  for  prior  charges  and  $2,400,000 
for  preference  dividends,  there  remained  $31,477,000  for 
the  $180,000,000  of  common,  equal  to  nearly  17 J  per  cent. 

Obviously  this  is  not  a  proper  comparison  with  our 
own  railway  results :  it  is  rather  a  contrast.  Its  real 
object  is  to  illustrate  the  vast  variations  that  are  pos- 
sible in  the  working  conditions  of  railways  in  different 
countries,  especially  where  they  are  in  different  stages  of 
economic  development.  Canada  at  present  is  in  a  state 
of  economic  flux,  while  the  United  Kingdom  has  settled 
down  into  stereotyped  grooves.  The  movements  both  of 
passengers  and  goods  are  proportionately  much  greater 
in  the  new  country  than  in  the  old  one.  The  Canadian 
Pacific  has  thus  two  immense  advantages  over  any  British 
and  even  over  any  European  railway.  One  is  a  relatively 
low  capitalisation,  and  the  other  is  a  large  proportion  of 
long-distance  traffic. 

Its  10,500  miles  of  line,^  carrying  260  million  dollars 
of  bonds  and  preference  stock  and  180  miUion  dollars 
of  common  stock,  averages  only  $42,000,  or  £8,400  per 
mile,  against  the  British  £52,400  per  mile.  But  here 
again  the  comparison  is  hardly  on  all  fours.     While  the. 

1  1911. 


26  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

Canadian  Pacific  is,  with  the  exception  of  its  busiest 
sections,  a  single-track  road,  the  English  railway  sys- 
tem is  practically  aU  double,  and  much  of  it  triple  track. 
Its  16,200  miles  of  line  represent  fully  42,000  miles  of 
single  track,  the  average  capitaHsation  of  which  would 
be,  instead  of  £52,400  only  £22,500  per  mile.  Per  contra, 
the  Canadian  Pacific  had  in  1911  only  553  miles  of  double 
track.  Reduced  to  single  track  its  total  mileage  was 
11,034  miles,  and  on  this — the  true  basis — its  average 
capitaHsation  would  be  $40,000,  or  £8,000  per  mile  against 
an  English  average  of  £22,500  per  mile. 

Even  so,  $40,000  per  mile  does  not  represent  anjrthing 
like  the  real  amount  of  money  that  has  gone  mto  the 
Canadian  Pacific.  The  Canadian  Government  had  built 
600  or  700  miles  of  it  before  the  company  took  it  over, 
and  the  company  not  only  got  that  as  a  free  gift,  but 
had  a  money  subsidy  of  twenty-five  million  dollars  as  well. 
Moreover,  for  the  first  ten  or  fifteen  years  of  its  operation 
large  amounts  of  current  revenue  had  to  be  capitalised 
instead  of  being  distributed  in  dividends.  If  a  complete 
account  could  be  made  up  of  the  money  that  went  into 
the  Canadian  Pacific  from  special  sources,  quite  apart 
from  the  shareholders,  it  would  probably  increase  the 
existing  ordinary  capital  by  one-fourth. 

Its  true  average  may  be  about  $50,000  per  mile  as  com- 
pared with  the  English  £22,500  per  mile  of  single  track. 
The  same  amount  of  revenue  would  therefore  go  fully 
twice  as  far  on  the  Canadian  Pacific  capital  as  on  the 
English.  This  remark  will  apply  also  to  many  of  the 
United  States  roads  which  show  large  percentages  of 
gross  and  net  revenue  on  comparatively  small  capitals. 
Even  the  Union  Pacific,  though  it  is  no  longer  very 
lightly  capitaHsed,  its  average  being  $70,000  per  mile, 
might  in  two  recent  years  have  paid  20  per  cent,  divi- 
dends. Its  surplus  available  for  the  common  stock 
ranged  lately  from  19*1  per  cent,  down  to  13*8  per  cent. 

Broadly  put,  British  railways  have  had  to  pay  top 
prices  for  their  charters,  their  land,  their  materials, 
and  nearly  everything  that  has  gone  into  them,  whereas 
American  and  Canadian  lines  have  had  the  advantage 


WHY  THEY  HAVE  COST  SO  MUCH         27 

of  free  charters,  cheap  land  and  cheap  building.  In 
addition  they  obtained  large  subsidies  from  public  au- 
thorities which  do  not  appear  in  their  capital  accounts. 
At  the  outset  they  were  much  more  roughly  built  than 
the  typical  British  railway.  They  had  to  spend  much 
less  money  on  stations,  fencing  and  bridges.  American 
engineering  is  altogether  of  a  plainer  and  more  severely 
practical  sort  than  British.  There  is  nothing  in  it  of 
what  American  engineers  contemptuously  call  filagree 
work. 

The  most  curious  contrast  between  the  two  systems 
arises  out  of  their  widely  different  methods  of  finance. 
Reorganisations  and  reconstructions  have  been  common 
to  both,  but  they  have  been  carried  out  on  opposite  lines. 
"  Scaling  down  "  stocks  has  been  a  favourite  American 
practice,  and  a  countless  amount  of  capital  has  been 
wiped  out  in  that  way.  On  the  other  hand,  British 
manipulation  of  stocks  has  generally  taken  the  form  of 
nominal  additions  to  them,  as  explained  in  the  preceding 
chapter.  While  these  have  tended  to  exaggerate  the 
capitalisation  of  British  railways,  American  "  scaling 
down  "  has  had  the  reverse  effect.  Hence  average  cost 
per  mile  is  no  longer  an  equitable  basis  of  comparison. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   WORK   THEY   DO 

The  highest  and  most  conclusive  test  of  the  efficiency 
of  a  railway  system  is  the  value  of  the  work  it  does  for 
the  community.  This  should  take  precedence  of  all 
questions  of  dividends,  wages  and  labour  conditions. 
Even  the  burning  question  of  nationalisation  should  be 
subordinate  to  it.  A  railway  in  private  hands  may  be 
a  national  boon  ;  there  are,  in  fact,  many  such  examples. 
On  the  other  hand,  a  state-owned  and  managed  railway 
may  be  a  national  evil.  Everything  depends  on  the 
railway  itself  and  the  character  of  its  work.  If  it  ably 
and  honestly  serves  the  district  it  occupies  it  will  be  not 
only  a  great  public  convenience,  but  a  source  of  prosperity 
and  an  incentive  to  progress  of  all  kinds. 

One  of  the  best  possible  illustrations  of  this  economic 
truth  is  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  British  railways. 
The  contrast  between  the  England  of  to-day  and  the 
England  of  eighty  years  ago  is  to  a  large  extent  their 
doing.  If  they  had  never  paid  a  dividend  to  their 
proprietors  they  would  still  have  been  a  good  investment 
for  the  country.  In  order  to  realise  this  one  has  only  to 
glance  at  the  official  records  of  the  work  they  do,  and 
which  but  for  them  could  never  have  been  done.  A  few 
details  of  the  goods  and  passenger  movements  of  1911 
will  probably  amaze  the  reader. 

In  that  year  1,325  millions  of  passengers,  113|  million 
tons  of  merchandise  and  407f  miUion  tons  of  minerals 
were  carried  on  the  railways  of  the  United  Kingdom. 
The  passenger  trains  ran  an  aggregate  distance  of  270 
million  miles,  and  the  goods  trains  an  aggregate  of  156^ 
million  miles.   Passenger  earnings  amounted  to  38  millions 

28 


THE  WORK  THEY  BO  29 

sterling  plus  nearly  6  millions  for  parcels,  mails  excess, 
luggage,  etc.  The  total  revenue  of  the  passenger  trains 
was  therefore  about  44  millions  sterling.  The  cost  to 
the  community  of  a  passenger  service  consisting  of 
thousands  of  trains  per  day  and  covering  the  whole 
kingdom  from  Thurso  to  Bantry  Bay  is  less  than  a  pound 
per  head  per  annum.  There  has  been  more  new  taxation 
levied  in  the  past  half-dozen  years  than  would  provide 
free  railway  travelling  for  the  whole  forty-five  millions 
of  our  population. 

But  vast  as  that  service  is,  it  is  not  the  greatest  that 
our  railways  have  rendered  to  us.  The  400  million  tons 
of  minerals  they  carry  every  year  are  the  basis  of  our 
national  industries  and  our  domestic  comforts.  Without 
them  there  could  be  no  gigantic  ship-yards  on  the  Clyde 
and  no  huge  factories  in  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire. 
London  itself  would  be  an  impossibility,  though  that  is 
perhaps  a  not  wholly  regrettable  alternative.  For  every 
man,  woman  and  child  in  the  United  Kingdom  9  tons  of 
minerals  and  2J  tons  of  merchandise  have  to  be  trans- 
ported annually  by  rail.  That  means  employment  for 
millions  who  would  otherwise  have  had  to  emigrate  or 
starve. 

^©Wherever  railways  are  most  active  and  enterprising 
there  we  find  the  greatest  prosperity  and  the  best  con- 
ditions of  human  life.  Conversely,  sleepy  railways  are  a 
sure  sign  of  stagnant  communities.  Compare  the  Canadian 
North-West  with  the  Province  of  Quebec,  or  the  railway 
areas  of  China  with  the  still  undeveloped  provinces,  if 
you  would  estimate  the  wealth-creating  power  of  the 
locomotive.  On  a  smaller  scale  we  can  see  it  in  the 
commercial  relations  of  the  three  kingdoms.  Their 
respective  degrees  of  economic  progress  are  most  correctly 
indicated  by  their  railway  operations.  England  and 
Wales  have  80  per  cent,  of  the  population,  Scotland  10 J 
per  cent.,  and  Ireland  9 J  per  cent.,  but  railway  business 
is  very  differently  distributed  among  them. 

Of  the  1,325  milhons  of  passengers  carried  in  1911, 
England  and  Wales  had  90  per  cent.,  while  Scotland  had 
only  8  per  cent.,  and  Ireland  barely  2 J  per  cent.     In  the 


30  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

tonnage  of  merchandise  moved,  Scotland  made  a  better 
show  and  Ireland  a  worse  one  than  in  passenger  traffic. 
The  respective  percentages  in  this  case  were — England 
and  Wales  84,  Scotland  12 J,  Ireland  3 J.  In  passenger 
business  England  was  10  per  cent,  above  its  proportion 
of  the  population;  Scotland  2  per  cent,  under  it,  and 
Ireland  7^  per  cent,  under.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
merchandise  traffic  Scotland  was  2  per  cent,  above  its 
population  level,  and  England,  instead  of  being  10  per 
cent,  above  hers,  was  only  4  per  cent.,  while  Ireland  was 
6  per  cent,  under  hers. 

But  it  is  the  mineral  traffic  that  brings  out  the  most 
remarkable  diversity  between  the  three  branches  of  the 
United  Kingdom.  Here  Ireland  is  practically  nowhere. 
Her  contribution  of  2J  million  tons  to  an  aggregate  of 
407|  million  tons  is  microscopic, — little  more  than 
one-half  of  one  per  cent.  Scotland's  64 J  million  tons 
form  a  respectable  quota  equal  to  13 J  per  cent.  The 
lion's  share,  which  falls  to  England  and  Wales,  is 
350|  out  of  407|  million  tons,  equal  to  86  per  cent,  of 
the  whole. 

These  figures  and  percentages  shed  a  flood  of  light  on 
two  anomalies  in  our  railway  system — first,  the  pre- 
dominance of  the  mineral  traffic,  and  secondly,  the  great 
disadvantage  under  which  the  Irish  railways  labour  in 
this  respect.  Coal,  iron  and  their  products  are  un- 
doubtedly the  mainstay  of  British  railways.  The  pre- 
historic railway  director  who,  when  it  was  proposed  to 
carry  coal,  exclaimed,  "  What  next  !  They  will  be  asking 
us  to  carry  manure  by  and  by,"  would  have  had  a  fit 
at  the  sight  of  a  1300-ton  coal  train  on  the  North-Eastern 
railway.  A  good  many  of  his  successors  might  have  fits 
if  the  1300-ton  coal  trains  were  to  disappear. 

As  for  Ireland,  if  she  is  severely  handicapped  by  lack 
of  coal,  she  has  a  valuable  compensation  in  the  abundance 
of  her  peat.  For  the  poor  it  is  on  the  whole  better  to 
have  fuel  at  their  own  doors  to  which  they  can  help 
themselves  than  down  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth  which 
when  raised  they  have  to  buy  by  the  hundredweight  at 


THE  WORK  THEY  DO 


31 


the  rate  of  305.  per  ton,  as  millions  of  Londoners  must  do 
every  winter. 

The  respective  amomits  which  the  three  kingdoms 
pay  for  their  railway  service  is  another  instructive 
question.  England  and  Wales  contributed  fully  38 
millions  of  the  44  millions  spent  on  passenger  fares  in 
1911.  That  was  a  shade  less  than  86 J  per  cent,  of 
the  whole.  Scotland's  share  was  4J  millions,  or  nearly 
9 J  per  cent.,  which  exactly  coincided  with  her  propor- 
tion of  the  population.  Ireland's  £1,717,000  made  up 
the  remaining  4  per  cent.  Thus,  notwithstanding  the 
vigorous  efforts  of  the  railway  companies,  both  British 
and  Irish,  to  develop  tourist  traffic  in  Ireland,  there  is 
still  a  good  deal  of  leeway  to  make  up  in  passenger 
receipts. 

The  railway  operations  of  the  three  kingdoms  and 
their  respective  results  may  be  most  clearly  illustrated 
by  a  few  condensed  tables.  Li  the  first  (Table  A)  the 
passenger  traffic  is  analysed  so  as  to  show  (a)  the  total 
number  of  passengers  carried  in  1911,  (6)  the  total  number 
of  train  miles  run,  and  (c)  the  average  number  of  passen- 
gers per  train  mile. 

British  Railways,  1911. 
A. — Passengers  Gross  and  per  Train  Mile. 


1     Passengers. 
(OOO's) 

Train  Miles. 
(OOO's) 

Passengers  per 
Train  Mile. 

England  and  Wales  :  Steam  . 
Electric 

Scotland 

Ireland 

814,851 

373,353 

107,298 

30,815 

209,297 
20,261 
28,972 
11,746 

40 

13-4 

3-7 

2-6 

1,326,317 

270,276 

4-9 

Table  B  presents  a  corresponding  analysis  of  passenger 
earnings  in  the  three  kingdoms  :  (a)  total  number  of 
passengers  carried  in  1911;  (6)  total  revenue  from  same; 
(c)  average  fare  per  passenger,  and  (d)  average  earnings 
per  train  mile  run. 


32 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

B. — Passenger  Revenue  per  Train  Mile, 


rassenc?er3. 
(OOO's) 

Revenue. 
(OOO's). 

Average 

per 
Passenger. 

Earnings 

per  Train 

Mile. 

England  and  Wales  :  Steam  . 
Electric 

Scotland 

Ireland 

814,851 

373,353 

107,298 

30,815 

£ 
43,332\ 

2,976j 

5,362 

2,284 

«.     d. 

0  9-3 

1  0 
1     6 

8.      d. 

4     0 

3     8 
3   11 

1,326,317 

53,954 

0    9-8 

4     0 

Table  C  gives  a  comparative  view  of  the  mineral  and 
merchandise  tonnage  of  1911  in  the  three  kingdoms, 
and  shows  also  the  total  number  of  train  miles  run  in 
each  of  them. 

C. — ^Mineral  and  Merchandise  Tonnage. 


Minerals.    [Merchandise.!  Total  Tons.    Train  Miles. 
(OOO's)      1       (OOO's)       1       (OOO's)       i        (OOO's) 

England  and  Wales  . 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Tons.              Tons. 
352,6.50          95,641 
54,850          13,819 
2,312            4,305 

Tons. 
448,291 
68,669 
6,617 

130,867 

20,276 

5,357 

409,812    1     113,765 

523,577    1     156,500 

The  gross  receipts  from  minerals,  merchandise  and  live 
stock  in  each  of  the  three  kingdoms  will  be  next  seen  in 
Table  D. 

T>. — Mineral  and  Merchandise  Revenue. 


Minerals. 
(OOO's) 

Merchandise. 
(OOO's) 

Live  Stock. 
(OOO's) 

Total. 
(OOO's) 

England  a-id  Wales  . 

Scotland 

Ireland 

£ 
25,974 
3,465 
306 

£ 

27,042 

3,564 

1,469 

£ 
906 
252 
307 

£ 

53,922 

7,281 

2,082 

29,745     i     32,075 

1,465 

63,285 

Such  huge  amounts  may  not  have  much  meaning  for  the 
general  reader  who  will  doubtless  prefer  them  reduced  to 
mileage  averages.  These  are  of  two  kinds — first,  averages 
per  mile  of  track,  and  secondly,  averages  per  train  mile 
run.     Judged   by  this  test   the  amount   of   work  done 


THE  WORK  THEY  DO 


33 


sounds  disappointingly  small  compared  with  the  tremen- 
dous organisation  employed  in  doing  it.  That  the  rail- 
way trains  of  the  United  Kingdom  should  carry  on  an 
average  only  3  J  tons  for  every  mile  they  run  would  be 
a  startling  announcement  to  make  at  a  meeting  of  railway 
shareholders,  but  here  are  the  official  figures  by  which 
any  one  may  check  the  calculations  for  himself : — 

E. — Train  Mileage  op  Merchandise  and  Minerals. 


Total 

Train  Miles. 

(OOO's) 

Tons  per 
Train  Mile. 

Tons  per  Mile 
of  Track. 

England  and  Wales  . 

Scotland 

Ireland 

130,867 

20,276 

5,357 

3-40 
3-39 
1-23 

10,620 
8,840 
1,440 

156,600 

3-34 

9,600 

The  comparatively  small  average  quantity  carried  per 
train  mile  is  matched  by  the  comparatively  small  average 
amount  earned.  For  England  and  Wales  it  is  Ss.  3d.  per 
train  mile,  for  Scotland  75.  2d.,  for  Ireland  Is.  9d.,  and 
for  the  United  Kingdom  85.  Id.  But  poor  as  they  look, 
these  averages  are  handsome  beside  the  passenger  earnings 
per  train  mile.  They  were  in  1911  45.  for  England  and 
Wales,  35.  Sd.  for  Scotland,  35.  Ud.  for  Ireland,  and  45. 
for  the  United  Kingdom.  Why  should  passenger  trains 
earn  less  than  half  as  much  per  train  mile  as  goods  trains 
do  ?  Is  the  cause  low  fares,  excessive  mileage,  or  what  ? 
Will  some  railway  manager  kindly  explain  ? 
F. — Goods  and  Minerals.  Average  Receipts  per  Mile  of  Track 
AND  PER  Train  Mile. 


Total 

Receipts. 

(OOO's) 

Average 
per  Mile 
of  Track. 

Average 

per  Train 

Mile. 

Passenger 

Average 

per  Train 

Mile. 

England  and  Wales  .      .      . 

Scotland 

Ireland 

£ 

53,922 

7,281 

2,082 

£ 
1,280 
938 
450 

8.     d. 
8    3 

7    2 
7    9 

8.     d. 
4    0 
3     8 
3  11 

63,285 

1,160 

8     1 

4    0 

The  analysis  shown  in  the  foregoing  tables  could  be 


34 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


carried  to  an  almost  unlimited  extent.  Every  individual 
railway  company  might  have  its  operating  accounts 
thus  dissected,  but  here  we  must  limit  ourselves  to  the 
five  representative  groups  already  selected  for  special 
investigation — ^the  trunk  lines,  southern  passenger  lines, 
mineral  Hnes,  Scottish  and  Irish.  The  first  group  com- 
prises, it  will  be  remembered,  nine  of  the  principal 
English  railways — ^the  Great  Central,  Great  Eastern, 
Great  Northern,  Great  Western,  Lancashire  and  York- 
shire, London  and  North- Western,  London  and  South- 
western, Midland  and  North-Eastern. 

This  group,  though  only  nine  in  number,  and  conse- 
quently a  mere  fraction  numerically  of  the  two  hundred 
and  fifty  railway  companies  in  the  United  Kingdom,  com- 
mands 58  per  cent,  of  the  aggregate  capital  and  62  per 
cent,  of  the  total  mileage.  It  carries  40  per  cent,  of 
the  total  number  of  passengers  and  63  per  cent,  of  the 
merchandise  and  minerals.  We  may  therefore  expect  to 
find  in  it  the  finest  examples  of  British  railway  adminis- 
tration, the  most  up-to-date  methods  of  working,  and  the 
best  financial  results  both  for  traders  and  shareholders. 

Beginning  with  a  bird's-eye  view  of  the  operations  of 
the  trunk  line  group,  the  succeeding  tables  will  analyse 
and  compare  the  various  branches  of  traffic — passenger, 
merchandise  and  mineral.  They  will  also  show  the 
averages  per  mile  of  track  and  per  train  mile. 
Trunk  Lines,  1911. 
A. — A  Bibd's-Eyb  View  of  their  Operations. 


Mileage  of 
Single  Track. 


Earnings. 
(OOO's) 


Ooods 

Earnings. 

(OOO's) 


Great  Central 

Great  Eastern 

Great  Northern      .... 

Great  Western 

Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
London  and  North- Western . 
London  and  South -Western  . 

Midland 

North-Eastern       .     .     .     . 


2,252 
2,640 
2,656 
6,645 
2,194 
5,602 
2,218 
4,862 
4,842 


£ 
1,4180 
3,156-0 
2,420-0 
6,801-0 
2,591-0 
6,831-0 
3,502-0 
4,158-0 
3,386-0 


£ 
3,348-4 
2,646-2 
3,347-9 
7,289-3 
3,495-3 
9,075-2 
1,601-6 
8,681-3 
6,960-2 


3,3700 


34,263-0 


46,436-4 


THE  WORK  THEY  DO 


35 


B. — Average  Number  of  Passengers  per  Mile  of  Track 
AND  PER  Train  Mile. 


Passengers. 
(OOO's) 

Train  Miles. 
(OOO's) 

Number 
per  Mile 
of  Track 

Number 

per  Train 

Mile. 

Great  Central 

Great  Eastern        .... 
Great  Northern      .... 
Great  Western        .... 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
London  and  North- Western  . 
London  and  South-Western  . 

Midland 

North-Eastern        .... 

25,015-6 
98,329-8 
36,670-6 
102,523-2 
68,965-8 
74,552-4 
68,701-2 
50,639-6 
60,973-2 

8,790-1 
14,029-6 
13,054-0 
32,760-5 
12,705-3 
30,705-2 
15,649-6 
22,441-5 
17,418-5 

11,100 
38,700 
13,400 
15,400 
27,000 
13,500 
30,970 
10,410 
12,600 

2-8 
7-0 
2-7 
3-1 
4-6 
2-4 
4-4 
2-3 
3-5 

675,261-4 

167,554-3 

17,000 

3-4 

C. — Passenger  Receipts.    Averages  per  Mile  op  Track,  per 
Train  Mile  and  per  Passenger. 


Passenger 

Receipts. 

(OOO's) 

Per  Mile 

of 

Track. 

Per  Train 
Mile. 

Per 

Passenger. 

Great  Central         .     .     . 
Great  Eastern  .... 
Great  Northern     .       .      . 
Great  Western        .      .      . 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
London  and  North- Western 
London  and  South-Western 

Midland 

North-Eastern        .     .     . 

1,418.0 
3,156-0 
2,420-0 
6,801-0 
2,591-0 
6,831-0 
3,502-0 
4,158-0 
3,3860 

£ 

630 
1,240 

910 
1,023 
1,180 
1,230 
1,580 

860 

700 

t.     d. 

3  3 

4  6 

3  8 

4  2 
4    0 
4    6 
4    6 
3    9 
3  10 

«.    d. 
1     li 

?I* 

1     4 

0  m 

1  10 
1     0 
1     8 
1     1 

D. — Tonnage  of  Merchandise  and  Minerals. 


Miles  of 
Single 
Track. 

Tons  of 
Mer- 
chandise. 
(OOO's) 

Tons  of 

Minerals. 

(OOO's) 

Total 

Tonaage. 

(OOO's) 

Great  Central        .... 
Great  Eastern      .... 
Great  Northern    .... 
Great  Western      .... 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire    . 
London  and  North -Western. 
London  and  South-Western. 

Midland 

North-Eastern      .... 

2,262 
2,640 
2,655 
6,645 
2,194 
6,502 
2,218 
4,862 
4,842 

6,424*9 
6,067-0 
5,363-5 
9,030-8 
7,462-2 

11,020-6 
2,682-0 
9,481'0 

15,346-8 

29,462-6 
7,366-1 
16,557-7 
44,927-2 
18,930-4 
43,679-8 
4,341-8 
41,780-6 
51,064-5 

35,887-5 
13,433-1 
21,921-2 
53,958-0 
26,392-6 
54,700-4 
7,023-8 
51,261-6 
66,411-3 

33,700 

72,878-8 

268,110-6 

330,989-4 

36 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


E. — Average  Tonnage  per  Train  Mile  and  per  Mile  op  Track. 


Total 

Tonnage. 

(OOO's) 

Train  MUes. 
(OOO's) 

Tons  per 
Train  Mile. 

Tons  per 
Mile  of 
Track. 

Great  Central         .... 

Great  Eastern 

Great  Northern      .... 
Great  Western       .... 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
London  and  North- Western  . 
London  and  South- Western  . 

Midland 

North- Eastern       .... 

35,887-5 
13,433-1 
21,921-2 
53,958-0 
26,392-6 
54,700-4 
7,023-8 
51,261-5 
66,411-3 

8,443-7 

8,306-8 
10,107-9 
20,146-8 

5,096-3 
17,467-4 

4,429-9 
26,394-9 
11,386-5 

4,250 
1,617 
2,169 
2,680 
5,180 
3,130 
1,585 
1,940 
5,830 

16,000 
5,310 
8,260 
8,120 

12,030 
9,940 
3,170 

10,570 

13,720 

330,989-4 

111,780-2 

2,960 

9,820 

Next  we  have  a  representative  group  of  mineral  lines, 
nine  in  number,  like  the  trunk  line  group,  but  operating 
on  a  much  smaller  scale. 

Mineral  Lines,   1911. 
F. — Average  Number  of  Passengers  per  Mile  op  Track  and 
PER  Train  Mile. 


Passengers 
(OOO's) 


Train 
Miles 
(OOO's) 


Number 

per  Mile  of 

Track. 


Number 

per  Train 

Mile. 


Barry  .... 
Brecon  and  Merthyr 
Cardiff       .      .      . 
Furness 

Hull  and  Barnsley 
North  Staffordshire 
Neath  and  Brecon 
Rhymney 
TaffVale  .      .      . 


2,722-1 
1,014-7 

146-6 
2,973-7 

567-9 
7,001-3 

441-6 
3,7221 
8,368-0 


586-6 

268-2 

72-5 

738-4 

436-8 

1,444-8 

52-5 

407-3 

1,079-8 


9,485 

9,500 

1,130 

8,000 

1,920 

1,400 

820 

23,000 

21,600 


4-6 
3-8 
2-0 
4-0 
1-3 
4-8 
8-4 
91 
7-8 


26,957-9 


5,086-9 


11,770 


5-3 


G. — Merchandise 

AND 

Mineral  Tonnage  Compared. 

Merchandise. 
Tons. 
(OOO's) 

Mineral. 
Tons. 
(OOO's) 

Total 

Tonnage. 

(OOO's) 

Barry 

644-6 
160-9 

1,2120 
609-5 
827-2 

1,717-0 

67-8 

251-4 

880-8 

9,430-0 
3,127-7 
1,674-7 
3,378-8 
3,9731 
5,687-1 
1,360-1 
9,822-6 
17,661-2 

10,074-6 
3,288-6 
2,886-7 
3,988-3 
4,800-3 
7,404-1 
1,427-9 
10,074-0 
18,642-0 

Brecon  and  Merthyr    . 
Cardiff 

Furness        .... 
Hull  and  Barnsley 
North  Staffordshire     . 
Neath  and  Brecon . 
Rhymney    .... 
TaffVale     .... 

6,371-2 

56,116-3 

62,486-5 

THE  WORK  THEY  DO 


37 


H. — AvBRAGB  Tonnage  per  Tbain  Mile  and  per  Mile  of  Track. 


Total  Tons 
(OOO's) 

Train 

Miles. 

Tons  per 
Train  Mile. 

Tons  per 
Mile  of 
Track. 

Barry     ....,- 

10,074-6 
3,288-6 
2,886-7 
3,988-3 
4,800-3 
7,404-1 
1,427-9 
10,0740 
18,542-0 

1,088-8 

320-0 

652-8 

627-5 

1,611-4 

1,165-6 

88-9 

1,364-8 

1,554-6 

9,250 
10,280 
4,420 
6,350 
2,980 
6,350 
1,600 
7,380 
1,190 

35,110 
30,750 
22,380 
10,800 
16,270 
14,780 
26,450 
62,180 
48,000 

Brecon  and  Merthyr 
Cardiff   .... 

Furness 

Hull  and  Barnsley 
North  Staffordshire 
Neath  and  Brecon 
Rhymney    . 
TaffVale     .     .      . 

62,486-5 

8,474-4         7,370 

27,280 

The  Scottish  group  embraces  four  lines,  two  large  and 
two  small  ones,  with  a  moderate  one  between.  The 
averages  per  mile  of  track  and  per  train  mile  are  worked 
out  below  uniformly  with  those  of  the  trunk  and  the 
mineral  groups. 

In  the  Irish  group  we  have  half-a-dozen  railways,  but 
three  of  them  are  partly  English.  One  of  the  principal 
lines  in  Ulster  is  now  known  as  the  Irish  section  of  the 
Midland  Railway.  The  Dublin  and  South-Eastern  is 
closely  affiliated  with  the  London  and  North- Western, 
while  the  Great  Southern  and  Western  works  in  close 
aUiance  with  the  English  Great  Western.  The  effects 
of  these  Anglo-Irish  combinations  are  more  apparent 
in  the  passenger  than  in  the  goods  traffic  of  the  Irish 
lines.  The  following  three  tables  exhibit,  first,  the  aggre- 
gate passenger  and  goods  movements,  and  secondly,  the 
averages  per  mile  of  track  and  per  train  mile. 


38 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


The  Scottish  Group. 

-Average  Number  of  Passengers  per  Mile  of  Track  and 
PER  Train  Mile. 


Passengers. 
(OOO's) 


Train 
Miles. 
(OOO's) 


Number 

per  Mile  of 

Track. 


Number 
TraffMile. 


Caledonian 

Glasgow  and  South-Western 
Great  North  of  Scotland  . 

Highland 

North  British   .... 


33,233-8 

16,741-1 

3,351-9 

2,128-7 

35,676-5 


10,092-9 
4,568-3 
1,518-4 
1,750-4 
9,496-5 


12,250 

15,100 

6,410 

3,340 

13,450 


3-3 
3-7 
2-2 
1-2 
3-7 


91,1320 


27,426-5 


11,960 


3-3 


K. — Merchandise  and  Mineral  Tonnage. 


Merchandise. 
000  tons. 

Minerals. 

000  tons. 

Total  tonnage. 
(OOO's) 

Caledonian 

Glasgow  and  South-Western 
Great  North  of  Scotland  .      . 

Highland 

North  British 

5,612-6 

1,836-7 

444-8 

279-8 

5,5750 

21,700-9 

7,106-9 

563-3 

328-4 

24,991-4 

27,313-5 

8,943-6 

1,008-1 

608-2 

30,566-4 

13,748-9 

54,690-9 

68,439-8 

L. — Average  Tonnage  per  Mile  of  Track  and  per  Train  Mile. 


Total 

Tonnage. 

(OOO's) 

Total  Train 
Miles. 
(OOO's) 

Average 

per  Mile  of 

Track. 

Average 

per  Train 

MUe. 

Caledonian 

Glasgow  and  South-Western . 
Great  North  of  Scotland  .      . 

Highland 

North  British 

27,313-5 

8,943-6 

1,008-1 

608-2 

30,566-4 

6,665-2 
2,835-1 
670-5 
1,043-9 
8,911-7 

10,000 

8,100 

1,930 

950 

11,520 

4-1 
3-1 
1-5 
0-6 
3-4 

68,439-8 

20,126-4 

8,970 

3-4 

THE  WORK  THEY  DO 


39 


The  Irish  Group. 

M. — Average  Number  of  Passengers  per  mile  op  Track  and  per 
Train  Mile. 


Passengers. 
(OOO's) 

Train 
Miles. 
(OOO's) 

Number 
per  Mile 
of  Track. 

Number 

per  Train 

Mile. 

Belfast  and  County  Down 
Dublin  and  South- Eastern     . 
Great  Northern  of  Ireland     . 
Great  Southern  and  Western 
Midland  Great  Western    .      . 
Midland  (Irish  Section) 

3,196-0 
5,036-8 
6,997-6 
6,073-2 
1,754-8 
3,669-3 

714-3 
994-6 
2,841-7 
3,735-3 
1,6021 
1,298-2 

25,800 

23,200 

8,460 

3,950 

2,230 

10,000 

4-5 
50 
2-4 
1-6 
1-1 
2-8 

26,726-6 

11,186-1 

6,940 

2-4 

N. — Merchandise  and  Mineral  Tonnage  Combined. 


Goods. 
(OOO's) 

Minerals. 
(OOO's) 

Total  Tonnage 
(OOO's) 

Belfast  and  County  Down      . 
Dublin  and  South- Eastern     . 
Great  Northern  of  Ireland     . 
Great  Southern  and  Western 
Midland  Great  Western    .      . 
Midland  (Irish  section)     . 

145-4 
211-8 
1,008-7 
1,415-4 
635-4 
486-7 

140-6 
130-7 
686-3 
627-2 
133-2 
414-7 

285-9 
342-5 
1,595-0 
2,042-6 
668-6 
901-4 

3,803-4 

2,032-6 

5,836-0 

O. — Ayxbaob  Tonnage  per  Mile  op  Track  and  per  Train  Mile. 


Total 

Total 

Average 

Average 

Tonnage. 

Train  Miles. 

per  Mile 

per 

(OOO's) 

(OOO's) 

of  Track. 

Train  MUe. 

Belfast  and  Ck)unty  Down      . 

285-9 

87-8 

2,300 

3-25 

DubUn  and  South- Eastern     . 

342-5 

270-6 

1,580 

1-27 

Great  Northern  of  Ireland     . 

1,595-0 

1,221-0 

1,930 

1-3 

Great  Southern  and  Western 

2,042-6 

2,143-1 

1,330 

0-95 

Midland  Great  Western    .      . 

668-6 

928-1 

850 

0-72 

Midland  (Irish  Section) 

901-4 

488-2 

2,480 

1-8 

5,8360 

5,138-8 

1,500 

1-1 

CHAPTER  IV 

THEIR  GROSS  AND  NET  REVENUES 

The  most  practical  answer  to  the  question  whether  or 
not  a  railway  is  reasonably  and  safely  capitalised  is  the 
return  it  makes  on  its  capital  expenditure.  This  inquiry 
divides  itself  into  two  stages.  First  we  have  to  compare 
the  gross  annual  receipts,  and  next  the  net  receipts, 
with  the  capital  on  which  interest  and  dividends  have 
to  be  paid.  On  this  line  a  series  of  interesting  and 
valuable  comparisons  may  be  made,  beginning  with  the 
railway  systems  of  the  three  kingdoms,  and  proceeding 
through  the  various  representative  groups  that  were 
treated  of  in  the  previous  chapter — ^the  trunk  lines, 
passenger  lines,  mineral,  Scottish  and  Irish. 

The  16,200  miles  of  railway  in  England  and  Wales 
showed  in  1911  gross  earnings  of  £109,910,000^  and  net 
£40,937,000.  Their  net  capital,  after  the  elimination 
of  all  paper  stock  and  other  nominal  additions,  was 
£944,700,000.  On  this  the  gross  earnings  represented 
a  return  of  11|  per  cent.,  and  the  net  4*3  per  cent.  The 
3,815  miles  of  Scottish  railways,  with  a  cash  capitalisation 
of  £136,500,000,  earned  in  the  same  year  £13,498,000 
gross  and  £5,947,000  net,  being  10  per  cent,  and  44  per 
cent,  respectively.  The  3,402  miles  of  Irish  railways, 
capitalised  at  £43,600,000,  earned  £4,511,000,  or  10*3  per 
cent,  gross  and  3*9  per  cent.  net.  The  totals  for  the 
United  Kingdom  were  therefore  £1,124,816,000  of  cash 
capital,  £127,199,000  of  gross  earnings,  and  £48,581,000 
net,  equal  to  11*3  per  cent,  and  43  per  cent,  respectively. 

^  Including  electric  railways. 
49 


THEIR  GROSS  AND  NET  REVENUES       41 


British  Railways,  1911. 
Gross  and  Net  Earnings  compared  with  Capital. 


Net  Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Gross 

Earnings. 

(OOO's) 

Per- 

Icentage  of 

Capital. 

Net 
Earnings. 

Per 
Cent, 
of  Net 

England  and  Wales 
Scotland        .... 
Ireland 

£ 
944,764 
136,461 
43,591 

£ 
109,190 
13,498 
4,511 

11-5 
10-0 
10-3 

£ 

40,937 

5,947 

1,697 

4-3 
4-4 
3-9 

1,124,816 

127,199 

11-3 

48,581 

4-3 

The  most  noticeable  feature  in  these  averages  is  their 
unexpected  uniformity.  The  last  thing  to  be  looked 
for  in  them  was  that  the  much-disparaged  Irish  railways 
should  be  yielding  almost  as  good  returns  on  their  original 
cost  as  either  the  English  or  the  Scottish  lines.  Of  course 
they  are  much  inferior  lines  both  as  regards  construction 
and  traffic.  They  cost  much  less  to  build  than  the 
English  and  Scottish  lines  did,  and  their  traffics  are 
much  lighter,  but  their  earning  power  in  proportion  to 
their  capitalisation  is  not  a  great  deal  less.  Our  railway 
builders  are  entitled  to  some  credit  for  this  uniformity 
of  return  on  capital  cost.  It  shows  that  they  worked 
on  some  general  principle,  and  studied  local  conditions  as 
well  as  the  actual  requirements  of  the  traffic.  In  their 
preliminary  estimates  they  seldom  over-rated  the  prospect- 
ive traffic.  They  were  more  liable  to  err  on  the  short 
side.  But  the  three  systems — ^the  English,  Scottish  and 
Irish — are  surprisingly  alike  in  their  financial  results. 

Next  to  this  uniformity  of  return  on  capital  outlay  as 
between  the  three  kingdoms,  the  most  striking  feature 
is  the  contrast  it  offers  to  some  foreign  and  colonial 
returns  of  a  corresponding  class.  When  we  read  of 
Canadian  and  American  railways  earning  as  much  as 
10,  15  and  even  20  per  cent,  on  their  ordinary  stock,  it 
shows  us  how  widely  the  methods  and  conditions  of  rail- 
way transport  may  differ  in  various  countries.  Such  an 
anomaly  is  surely  worth  investigating,  and  it  is  strange 
that  British  railway  experts  should  have  given  it  so  little 
attention.    For  their  own  professional  credit  it  might  have 


42  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

been  thought  our  railway  admmistrators  would  have 
attempted  an  explanation  of  the  puzzle.  Can  it  be  that 
they,  in  common  with  railway  shareholders,  traders  and 
press  critics,  have  failed  to  perceive  the  great  importance 
of  capitahsation  as  a  factor  in  railway  results  ?  Did  they 
not  discover  until  it  was  too  late  that  by  not  sticking  to 
their  proper  work  as  railway  carriers  they  have  over- 
loaded themselves  with  extraneous  duties,  and  overloaded 
their  capital  accounts  with  extraneous  expenditure  ? 

The  typical  American  railway  receives  goods  at  one 
station  and  conveys  them  to  another  station.  It  simply 
provides  the  wagons  and  does  the  hauling.  It  neither 
collects  nor  delivers.  It  has  no  parcel  service — all  that 
is  turned  over  to  the  Express  companies.  It  seldom 
runs  a  hotel  or  a  line  of  steamers,  though  it  frequently 
has  its  own  shipping  wharfs.  Its  capital  account  rarely 
includes  more  than  the  actual  cost  of  the  road  and  roUing 
stock.  It  is  not,  as  in  England,  loaded  down  with  out- 
lays on  outside  services  or  "  side  shows."  MiUions  of  our 
railway  capital  have  been  sunk  in  a  collection  and  dehvery 
outfit  which  often  contrives  to  be  both  expensive  and 
unprofitable.  Other  millions  are  locked  up  in  a  parcel 
service  which  specially  organised  companies  might  have 
done  much  better.  Still  more  miUions  have  disappeared 
in  the  hotel,  dining-car  and  sleeping-car  business. 

It  is  in  England  rather  than  in  Scotland  or  Ireland  that 
railway  enterprise  is  most  promiscuous,  and  more  fre- 
quently overflows  its  proper  channel.  About  8 J  per 
cent,  of  the  gross  earnings  of  the  English  and  Welsh  fines 
is  extraneous  income.  The  aggregate  receipts  of  the 
16,060  miles  of  steam  railway  were  £105,887,000,  but  they 
included  £6,046,000  derived  from  steamers,  canals  and 
docks,  as  well  as  £3,696,000  of  miscellaneous  income  from 
rents,  tolls,  hotels,  etc.  In  order  to  ascertain  the  railwa}^ 
receipts  proper,  these  two  items,  amounting  together  to 
£8,741,000,  have  to  be  deducted  from  the  above  total  of 
£106,887,000.  The  traffic  receipts  of  the  16,060  miles  of 
railway  will  be  thereby  reduced  to  £97,146,000. 

To  that,  however,  there  is  a  large  set-off  on  the  expendi- 
ture side.  The  outside  undertakings  cost  very  nearly 
as  much  to  maintain  as  they  bring  in.     In   1911   the 


THEIR  GROSS  AND  NET  REVENUES       43 

working  expenses  of  the  steamers,  docks,  canals,  etc., 
amounted  to  £4,110,000,  in  addition  to  which  there  was 
£1,852,000  of  miscellaneous  outlay.  The  total  cost  of 
auxiliary  services  was  £5,962,000,  or  close  on  six  milUons 
sterling.  Assuming  these  to  have  been  all  bona  fide 
trading  operations,  the  excess  of  revenue  over  income 
would  be  £2,779,000.  That  looks  at  first  sight  like  a 
good  profit,  but  it  represents,  in  fact,  a  very  poor  return 
on  the  huge  amount  of  capital  employed  in  earning  it. 
One  of  the  most  successful  railway  ports  in  England  was 
admitted  a  few  years  ago  to  be  returning  only  2  per  cent, 
on  its  capital  outlay.  If  that  be  all  that  the  best  of 
them  can  do,  the  worst  must  be  poor  investments.  More 
than  one  still  falls  short  of  its  working  expenses. 

As  it  is  desirable  here  to  concentrate  attention  on 
railway  traffic  pure  and  simple,  these  outside  revenues 
and  expenditures  will  have  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
railway  accounts  proper.  In  future  that  distinction 
will  be  much  easier  to  make  than  it  is  at  present,  as  under 
the  Railway  Accounts  and  Returns  Act,  which  came 
into  operation  on  the  1st  January,  1913,  the  companies 
will  have  to  furnish  separate  accounts  for  their  trading 
ventures — steamers,  docks,  hotels,  etc.  Even  now  the 
principal  facts  concerning  them  can  be  obtaiued  by 
wading  through  the  annual  reports  of  the  Board  of  Trade, 
By  a  laborious  analysis  of  existing  data  it  is  possible  to 
give  the  reader  a  general  idea  of  these  much-discussed 
trading  operations,  and  also  to  foreshadow  the  nature 
of  the  additional  information  which  the  companies  will 
have  to  supply  hereafter. 

The  group  of  trunk  lines  which  do  three-fifths  of  the 
railway  work  of  the  United  Kingdom  will  be  the  most 
suitable  subjects  to  use  in  illustrating  the  tendency  of  our 
railway  service  to  become  needlessly  and  even  wastefuUy 
complex.  The  up-to-date  manager  competes  with  the 
department  stores  as  a  "universal  provider."  He  is 
always  discovering  or  inventing  something  which  no 
well-equipped  railway  can  do  without.  Some  companies 
are  more  fortunate  with  their  "  universal  providing " 
than  others,  but  it  will  be  seen  that  it  does  not  contribute 
much  to  any  of  their  dividends. 


44 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


The  following  series  of  tables  are  intended  to  present 
in  separate  form  and  consecutive  order  abstracts  of  the 
various  classes  of  railway  revenue  and  expenditure  which 
in  the  official  accounts  are  all  mixed  up  together.  The 
first  table  shows  the  earnings  of  the  passenger  and  goods 
services,  which  form  the  railway  revenue  proper.  The 
second  combines  with  these  the  results  of  the  trading 
operations,  and  thereby  arrives  at  the  gross  revenues  of 
the  various  lines.  The  third  summarises  the  receipts,  ex- 
penses and  net  revenues  of  the  railway  department  proper. 
The  fourth  does  the  same  for  the  trading  accounts.  The 
fifth  and  last  gives  the  averages  per  mile  of  the  railway 
gross  receipts,  working  expenses  and  net  revenue  for  each 
of  the  nine  trunk  lines. 

This  differs  from  the  usual  averages  based  on  the  whole 
earnings  and  expenses  of  the  railways,  which  are  worse 
than  useless  for  purposes  of  comparison,  especially 
international  comparisons.  On  one  side  we  eliminate 
the  trading  receipts,  and  on  the  other  the  trading  expenses, 
leaving  only  the  railway  results  proper.  Another  im- 
portant adjustment  is  the  use  of  single-track  mileage 
instead  of  miles  of  line.  This  remedies  in  some  degree 
the  anomaly  of  treating  all  railways  aHke,  whether  they 
have  one,  two,  three  or  four  tracks. 


Trunk  Lines,  1911. 
A. — Their  Traffic  Receipts  Classified  (Railway  Traffic  Proper). 


Mer- 
chandise. 
(OOO's) 

Live 
Stock. 
(OOO's) 

Minerals. 
(OOO's) 

Total 
Goods. 
(OOO's) 

Great  Central   .... 

£ 
1,2910 
1,567-3 
1,678-0 
3,510-2 
2,083-7 
5,278-3 
1,065-7 
3,680-2 
3,332-4 

£ 
24-7 
85-9 
46-4 

168-2 
411 

197-1 
45-7 

102-3 

106-4 

2,032-7 
993-0 
1,624-5 
3,621-0 
1,370-4 
3,699-8 
490-1 
4.898-7 
3,611-4 

3,348-4 

2,646-2 
3,347-9 
7,289-4 
3,495-2 
90,875-2 
1,601-5 
8,681-2 
6,950-2 

Great  Eastern  .... 

Great  Northern 
Great  Western 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
London  and  North- Western 
London  and  South- Western 
Midland 

North- Eastern 

23,486-8 

806-8 

22,141-6 

46,435-2 

THEIR  GROSS  AND  NET  REVENUES       45 


B.— Railway  Receipts  Proper  and  Trading  Receipts  Combined. 


Total 
Goods. 

Passengers. 

Trading 
Receipts. 

Gross 
Revenue. 

Great  Central   .... 
Great  Eastern  .... 
Great  Northern 
Great  Western        .      .      . 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
London  and  North-Western 
London  and  South-Western 
Midland 

£ 
3,348-4 
2,646-2 
3,347-9 
7,289-3 
3,495-3 
9,076-2 
1,601-6 
8,681-3 
6,960-2 

£ 
1,417-7 
3,156-2 
2,420-4 
6,801-1 
2,591-0 
6,831-1 
3,502-0 
4,158-5 
3,386-3 

£ 
509-5 
701-9 
301-7 
522-8 
647-0 
542-3 
666-6 
969-5 
425-5 

£ 
6,275-6 
6,504-3 
6,070-0 

14,613-2 
6,733-3 

16,448-7 
5,770-2 

13,809-3 

10,762-0 

North-Eastern        .      .      . 

46,436-4 

34,264-3 

5,286-8 

86,986-6 

C. — Their  Railway  Receipts,  Expenses  and  Net  Revenue. 


Gross  Receipts.      Expenses. 
(OOO's)         i         (OOO's) 

Net  Revenue. 
(OOO's) 

Great  Central 

Great  Eastern 

Great  Northern      .... 
Great  Western        .... 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire      . 
London  and  North-Western  . 
London  and  South-Western  . 

Midland 

North-Eastern        .      .      .      . 

4,766-1 
6,802-4 
5,768-4 

14,090-4 
6,086-3 

16,906-3 
5,103-6 

12,839-9 

10,336-5 

£ 
3,076-6 
3,653-7 
3,696-4 
8,674-3 
3,600-3 
9.994-9 
3,140-8 
7,892-2 
6,396-3 

£ 
1,689-6 
2,148-7 
2,0720 
6,4161 
2,486-0 
5,911-4 
1,962-8 
4,947-7 
3,940-2 

80,699-9 

50,125-4 

30,574-5 

D. — Their  Trading  Receipts — Expenses  and  Net  Revenue. 


Receipts. 

Expenses. 

Net  Revenue. 

Great  Central   .... 
Great  Eastern  .... 
Great  Northern 
Great  Western        .      .      . 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
London  and  North-Western 
London  and  South-Western 
Midland 

£ 
609,602 
701,922 
301,263 
622,785 
642,033 
542,351 
766,571 
969,643 
425,555 

£ 
371,022 
513,581 
196,730 
625,175 
629,626 
314,700 
641,690 
773,006 
406,444 

£ 
138,480 
188,341 
104,533 

2,390* 
112,408 
227,651 
224,881 
196,537 
19,111 

North-Eastern 

6,381,625 

4,171,973 

1,209,562 

♦  Loss. 


46 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


E. — Their  Railway  Receipts,  Expenses  and  Net  Revenue 
PER  Mile  (Single  Track). 


Miles. 


Railway 

Receipts. 

(OOO's) 


Expenses. 
(OOO's) 


Net 

Revenue 

(000*8) 


Great  Central   .... 
Great  Eastern  .... 
Great  Northern 
Great  Western 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
London  and  North -Western 
London  and  South-Western 

Midland 

North-Eastern 


2,252 
2,540 
2,655 
6,645 
2,194 
5,502 
2,218 
4,942 
4,852 


£ 
2,116 
2,284 
2,172 
2,120 
2,774 
2,890 
2,300 
2,600 
2,130 


£ 
1,367 
1,438 
1,392 
1,305 
1,641 
1,816 
1,416 
1,600 
1,320 


£ 

749 

846 

780 

815 

1,133 

1,074 

884 

1,000 

818 


33,700 


2,396 


1.487 


908 


By  tabulating  on  the  same  principle  the  railway  and 
trading  operations  of  the  mineral  group  of  lines  we  obtain 
the  three  following  tables  : — 


Mineral  Grotjp,  1911. 
-TnEiR  Railway  Receipts  Proper. 


Mer- 
chandise. 

Live 
Stock. 

Minerals. 

Total 
Goods. 

Barry 

Brecon  and  Merthyr   .     .     . 

Cardiff 

Furness 

Hull  and  Barnsley       ,      .      . 
North  Staffordshire     .      .      . 

Rhymney 

TaffVale 

£ 

41,524 

17,689 

24,003 

121,022 

203,636 

302,546 

31,862 

86,583 

568 
1,641 
7 
3,602 
1,286 
5,072 

133 
1,149 

£ 
261,581 
67,349 
27,397 
220,679 
339,894 
302,381 
254,592 
562,692 

£ 
303,673 
86,679 
51,407 
345,203 
544,815 
609,999 
286,587 
650,424 

828,864 

13,358 

2,036,665 

2,878,787 

THEIR  GROSS  AND  NET  REVENUES       47 


G. — Their  Railway  Receipts  and  Trading  Receipts  Combined. 


Total 
Goods. 

Passengers. 

Trading 
Receipts. 

Gross 
Revenue. 

Barry 

Brecon  and  Merthyr    . 

Cardiff 

Furness 

Hull  and  Barnsley       .      . 
North  Staffordshire     . 

Rhymney 

TaffVale 

£ 
303,673 
86,679 
61,407 
345,203 
644,815 
669,999 
286,687 
660,424 

£ 

49,217 

32,796 

2,611 

140,409 

27,438 

283,739 

86,822 

222,497 

370,168* 

5,626 

460,006 

68,975 

127,884 

99,467 

1,890 

119.971 

£ 
723,048 
125,101 
613,923 
654,687 
700,137 
1,053,205 
374,299 
992,892 

' 

2,938,787 

844,429 

1,253,976 

5,037,192 

♦  Dock  Dues,  etc. 


H. — Their  Trading  Receipts  Expenses  and  Net  Revenue. 


Receipts. 

Expenses. 

Net  Revenue. 

Barry 

Brecon  and  Merthyr    .      .      . 

Cardiff 

Furness 

Hull  and  Barnsley 

North  Staffordshire     .     .      . 

Rhymney 

TaffVale 

370,158 

6,626 

460,005 

08,975 

127,884 

99,467 

1,890 

119,971 

£ 
177,059 

238,299 
26,707 
61,334 
69,545 

48,332 

£ 

193,099 

6,626 

221,706 

42,268 

76,550 

29,922 

1,890 

71,639 

1,263,976 

611,276 

642,700 

Receipts  from  outside  operations  range  in  the  United 
Kingdom  from  5  to  10  per  cent,  of  the  aggregate  revenues. 
The  maximum  appears  where  it  would  naturally  be  looked 
for — ^in  the  southern  lines.  The  harbours,  steamers  and 
other  appliances  for  carrying  on  their  cross-channel  traffic 
require  to  produce  large  returns  in  order  merely  to  cover 
working  expenses,  let  alone  interest  on  capital  outlay. 
The  following  condensed  table  gives,  first,  the  three 
divisions  of  their  traffic  earnings  proper — ^merchandise, 
minerals  and  live  stock;  next,  the  passenger  receipts, 
and  finally,  the  trading  receipts.  The  last  item  is  £890,000 
out  of  a  grand  aggregate  of  £9,126,300,  or  very  nearly 
one-tenth.     In  the  new  form  of  railway  returns  it  will  be 


48 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


interesting  to  see  a  detailed  profit  and  loss  account  for  the 
hitherto  mysterious  cross-channel  operations. 

The  Southern  Passenger  Lines. 
I. — Their  Railway  Receipts  Proper. 


Mer- 
chandise. 
(OOO's) 

Live  stock. 
(OOO's) 

Minerals. 
(000-8) 

Total 
Gk)od8. 
(OOO's) 

South- Eastern  and  Chatham . 

London,  Brighton  and  South 

Coast 

£ 
745-4 

517-3 

£ 
20-6 

12-5 

£ 
406-4 

393-3 

£ 
1,172-4 

923-1 

1,262-7 

33-1 

799-7 

2,095-6 

K. — Their  Railway  and  Trading  Receipts  Combined. 


Goods. 
(OOO's) 

Passengers. 
(OOOs') 

Trading. 
(OOO's) 

Gross 

Revenue. 

(OOO's) 

South-Eastern  and  Chatham. 

London,  Brighton  and  South 

Coast 

£ 
1,172-4 

923-1 

3,606-2 
2,524-6 

£ 
607-6 

292-5 

£ 
6,386-1 

3,740-2 

2,095-6 

6,130-8 

900-0 

9,126-3 

The  trading  habit  varies  greatly  among  the  Scottish 
railways,  and  produces  correspondingly  different  results. 
It  is  largely  developed  on  the  Caledonian,  but  much  less 
so  on  the  North  British.  The  subjoined  tables  show  for 
the  former  trading  receipts  equal  to  fully  9  per  cent,  of 
gross  revenue,  but  on  the  latter  only  about  7J  per  cent. 

The  Scottish  Group,  1911. 
L. — Railway    Receipts    Proper. 


Mer- 

chandise. 

(OOO's) 

Live 
Stock. 

Minerals. 
(OOO's) 

Total 
Goods. 
(OOO's) 

Caledonian 

Glasgow  and  South-Western 
Great  North  of  Scotland  .     . 

Highland 

North  British 

£ 

1,320-7 
537-0 
141-8 
125-1 

1,424-9 

£ 
78-9 
32-7 
16-7 
25-4 
93-8 

1,310-0 

413-9 

68-0 

49-8 

1,616-8 

2,709-6 
983-6 
226-6 
200-3 

3,136-5 

3,649-6   1     247-5 

3,468-6 

7,266-5 

THEIR  GROSS  AND  NET  REVENUES       49 


M. — Thbib  Railway  and  Trading  Receipts  Combined. 


ITotal 
Goods. 
(OOO's) 

Passengers. 
(OOO's) 

Trading 

Receipts. 

(000s) 

Gross 

Revenue. 

(000-8) 

Caledonian 

Glasgow  and  South-Western 
Great  North  of  Scotland  .      . 

Highland 

North  British 

2,709-6 
983-6 
226-5 
200-3 

3,135-5 

1,958-6 
829-5 
263-5 
350-8 

1,855-9 

471-2 

295-7 

28-1 

15-6 

134-0 

5,139-4 

2,108-8 

5181 

566-7 

5,125-4 

7,255-6 

5,258-3 

944-6 

13,458-4 

N. — Their  Trading  Receipts,  Expenses  and  Net  Revenue. 


Receipts. 
(OOO's) 

Expenses. 
(OOO's) 

Net  Revenue. 
(OOO's) 

Caledonian 

Glasgow  and  South-Western . 
Great  North  of  Scotland  .     . 

Highland 

North  British 

£ 

471-2 

295-7 

28-1 

15-6 

134-0 

£ 

243-2 

135-9 

9-7 

10-6 

99-3 

228-0 
159-8 

18-4 
6-0 

34-7 

944-6 

498-7 

445-9 

Finally,  we  come  to  the  Irish  railways,  for  which  in 
these  days  few  have  a  good  word  to  say.  But  where 
depreciation  becomes  a  fashion  it  is  always  liable  to  be 
overdone,  and  so  it  is  in  Ireland.  Surprising  as  it  may 
appear  to  glib  parliamentary  critics,  there  are  some  good 
points  in  the  Irish  railways.  One  of  them  is,  that  they 
stick  closely  to  their  proper  business  and  do  not  waste 
their  energy  to  any  material  extent  on  "  side  shows." 
Perhaps  they  are  beginning  to  be  bitten  by  the  new 
universal  providing  policy,  but  the  accounts  of  1911  are 
comparatively  free  from  symptoms  of  it.  Except  in 
one  case,  and  that  an  English  line — ^the  Irish  section  of 
the  Midland  Railway — outside  receipts  are  insignificant. 


60 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


The  Irish  Group,  1911. 
0. — Their  Railway  Receipts  Proper. 


Mer- 
chandise. 
(OOO's) 

Live  Stock. 
(OOO's) 

Minerals. 
(OOO's) 

Total 
Goods. 
(OOO's) 

Belfast  and  County  Down      . 
Dublin  and  South-Eastern     . 
Great  Northern  of  Ireland     . 
Great  Southern  and  Western 
Midland  Great  Western    .      . 
Midland  (Irish  Section)     .      . 

£ 

28-7 
62-1 
383-7 
5180 
2281 
128-2 

£ 

21 

12-8 

52-7 

132-6 

78-4 

6-5 

£ 
10-6 
13-3 
83-7 
99-4 
24-4 
48-3 

£ 

41-4 
88-2 
520-1 
760-0 
330-9 
1830 

1,348-8 

285-1 

279-7 

1,913-6 

P. — Their  Railway  and  Trading  Receipts  Combined. 


Total 
Goods. 
(OOO's) 

^^HS 

Gross 

Revenue. 

(OOO's) 

Belfast  and  County  Down 
Dublin  and  South-Eastern     . 
Great  Northern  of  Ireland      . 
Great  Southern  and  Western 
Midland  Great  Western 
Midland  (Irish  Section)    .      . 

£ 

41-4 
88-2 
520-1 
750-0 
330-8 
183-1 

£ 

121-6 
193-8 
559-4 
738-3 
283-7 
199-5 

£ 

16-1 
10-2 
36-6 
13-6 
18-3 
34-7 

£ 
179-0 
292-3 
1,116-1 
1,501-8 
632-8 
417-3 

1,913-6 

2,096-3 

129-4 

4,139-3 

Q- — Their  Trading  Receipts,  Expenses  and  Net  Revenues. 


Receipts. 

Expenses. 

Net  Revenue. 

Belfast  and  County  Down     . 
Dublin  and  South-Eastern     . 
Great  Northern  of  Ireland     . 
Great  Southern  and  Western 
Midland  Great  Western    .      . 
Midland  (Irish  Section)     .     . 

£ 
16,067 
10,226 
36,583 
13,466 
18,290 
34,731 

£ 

17,367 
1,033 

34,767 
3,278 
7,248 

30,527 

£ 
1,300* 
9,193 
1,816 
10,188 
11,042 
4,204 

129,363 

94,220 

35,143 

Deficit. 


CHAPTER  V 

RAILWAY  ACCOUNTS  AND    STATISTICS 

Next  to  labour  unrest  the  most  vexed  question  which 
railway  administrators  have  had  to  face  in  recent  years 
has  been  the  agitation  for  fuller  and  more  instructive 
accounts.  As  to  the  necessity  for  these,  all  are  agreed, 
and  they  could  hardly  be  otherwise  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  statutory  forms  in  use  up  to  the  end  of  1912  had 
been  in  force  for  about  half  a  century.  It  stands  to  reason 
that  they  had  after  such  a  lapse  of  time  become  quite 
inadequate  and  out  of  date. 

Had  the  agitation  ended  with  a  demand  for  the  reform 
of  this  universally  admitted  evil  it  might  have  met 
with  little  resistance  from  the  officials  concerned.  Im- 
portant concessions  might  have  been  granted  years  ago 
and  promptly  brought  into  operation.  But  the  reform 
party  had  an  advance  wing,  the  leaders  of  which  aimed 
at  much  more  than  adequate  accounts.  They  had  worked 
out  in  their  own  heads  ideal  schemes  of  statistics  in 
which  every  movement  on  the  railways  was  to  be  reduced 
to  abstract  units.  Passenger  traffic  was  expressed  in 
passenger  units,  and  freight  traffic  in  freight  units.  One 
passenger  one  mile,  and  one  ton  of  goods  one  mile,  were 
advocated  as  universal  measures  of  transportation.  How 
to  arrive  at  these  imaginary  units  was  and  still  is  the  chief 
difficulty. 

Sir  George  Paish  and  Mr.  W.  M.  Acworth,  the  most 
zealous  exponents  of  the  ton  mile  unit,  have  read  elaborate 
papers  on  the  subject  before  the  Royal  Statistical  Society. 
These  made  a  sufficient  impression  on  the  Board  of  Trade 
to  induce  it  to  appoint  a  Departmental  Committee  of 
Inquiry.     But  it  was  cleverly  arranged  so  as  to  avert  any 

61 


52  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

danger  of  positive  conclusions.  The  statistical  reformers 
and  their  official  opponents  were  evenly  balanced  on  the 
committee,  and  on  important  points  the  result  was 
generally  a  drawn  battle.  Large  concessions  were  made 
by  the  railway  managers  with  respect  to  the  annual 
accounts,  but  the  hne  was  drawn  at  ton  mile  units. 
They  were  tabooed  as  a  costly  and,  for  all  but  statistical 
speciaHsts,  a  useless  luxury. 

While  sympathising  with  the  statistical  experts  and 
appreciating  their  academic  enthusiasm  on  behalf  of 
ton  miles  we  have  to  consider  here  only  the  practical 
merits  of  the  proposal.  The  sole  questions  for  us  are  : 
(1)  if  ton  miles  be  the  best  possible  test  of  efficiency,  (2) 
if  they  are  likely  to  be  of  great  value  to  railway  officials 
in  working  the  traffic,  and  (3)  if  no  simpler  and  more 
direct  checks  on  wasteful  or  inefficient  management  are 
available.  Confessedly  ton  mile  calculations  have  to  go 
a  long  way  round  to  get  at  their  result.  When  they  do 
reach  it  they  find  that  it  is  an  unwieldly  and  not  always 
a  rehable  result.  If  railway  managers  can  suggest  any- 
thing simpler  and  quicker  of  appHcation,  as  I  believe  they 
can,  we  are  entitled  to  hear  it. 

The  reader  may  remember  that  a  ton  mile  campaign 
was  started  years  ago  at  Euston,  and  though  it  met  with 
a  large  amount  of  support,  the  London  and  North-Westem 
directors  successfully  opposed  it.  After  that  it  became 
a  purely  theoretical  movement,  and  even  the  theorists 
are  much  divided  in  opinion  regarding  it.  As  for  the 
pubUc,  they  cannot  apparently  be  induced  to  make  the 
slightest  effort  to  understand  it.  To  Mr.  Ac  worth  and 
Sir  George  Paish  it  seems,  of  course,  perfectly  simple,  but 
their  definitions  of  it  are  not  always  precise  and  unam- 
biguous. A  fair  sample  of  them  is  to  be  found  in  the 
following  extract  from  Mr.  Ac  worth's  handbook  of  railway 
economics  : — 

"  The  unit  is  one  ton  of  goods  or  one  passenger  carried 
one  mile,  or  shortly,  the  ton  mile  and  the  passenger  mile. 
For  many  purposes,  at  least  under  English  conditions, 
we  may  treat  ton  miles  and  passenger  miles  as  equivalent, 
and  add  them  together  to  produce  traffic  miles.     Traffic 


ACCOUNTS  AND  STATISTICS  53 

density  is  the  number  of  traffic  miles  over  each  mile  of 
line  per  annum.  The  figure  is  the  quotient  of  the  total 
traffic  miles  run  on  the  railway  divided  by  the  length  in 
miles  of  the  railway.  These  figures,  practically  universal 
in  other  countries,  are  never  published,  and  only  exceptionally 
calculated  out  in  this  country.'' 

Sir  George  Gibb  and  Sir  George  Paish  agree  with  Mr. 
Ac  worth  that  "  English  published  reports  contain  no 
information  whatever  as  to  average  receipts  per  passenger 
per  mile  and  per  ton  of  freight  per  mile ;  no  particulars 
as  to  the  ton  or  passenger  mileage,  the  train  load,  the 
car  load  or  the  length  of  haul — all  of  which  are  essential 
to  the  administration  on  modern  scientific  principles.'* 
Sir  George  Gibb  adds  :  "  Not  only  is  this  information 
absent  from  the  published  reports  hut  it  is  known  not  to 
exist.  It  has  not  been  the  practice  in  England  to  compile 
such  information.'' 

Mr.  Acworth,  it  will  be  noticed,  is  not  argumentative. 
He  leaves  that  part  of  their  joint  work  to  Sir  George  Gibb. 
From  the  former  we  simply  learn  what  the  ton  mile  is,  or 
rather  what  it  is  meant  to  be.  The  latter  sets  forth  what 
he  deems  to  be  irresistible  and  unanswerable  reasons 
for  adopting  it.  In  his  preface  to  The  British  Railway 
Position,  he  speaks  of  it  as  "  the  charging  unit,"  and  thus 
explains  its  function  : — 

"  The  mile  as  a  unit  is  common  both  to  train  miles  and 
ton  miles,  and  no  unit  of  distance  can  be  better.  But  the 
train  varies  so  widely  in  its  composition  that  it  is  wholly 
unsuitable  for  the  purposes  of  exact  measurement  of  work 
done.  The  ton,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  unit  of  weight  as 
constant  and  uniform  as  the  mile.  It  is,  moreover,  the 
unit  habitually  used  for  charging  purposes.  Almost  all 
railway  rates  for  weight  traffic  are  charged  per  ton  mile. 
What  reasonable  objection  can  therefore  exist  to  the  use 
of  the  ton  for  statistical  purposes  in  conjunction  with  the 
mile  ? 

"  The  inherent  vice  of  the  train  mile  unit  is  its  uncer- 
tainty. As  a  standard  of  measurement  a  train  is  little 
better  than  the  historical  lump  of  chalk.  One  train  may 
carry  600  tons,  or  in  America  perhaps  3,000  tons  of  paying 


54  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

freight,  while  another  train  may  consist  of  two  smaU 
wagons  with  two  tons  in  each  wagon,  run  at  a  loss  under 
the  incentive  of  keen  competition.  In  tram  mile  state- 
ments each  of  these  trains  is  treated  as  if  they  were 
identical.  Hence  while  train  mile  figures  are  most  useful 
-—essential  indeed  for  some  purposes— they  are  for  other 
purposes  utterly  unsound  and  worthless." 

There  may  be  no  difficulty  in  discovermg  weak  points 
and  anomaHes  in  the  train  mile  unit,  but  equal  ingenuity 
exercised  on  the  opposite  side  might  be  just  as  damaging 
to  ton  miles.  In  truth  the  same  fundamental  objection 
may  be  made  against  them  both— namely,  that  in  taking 
averages  many  different  kinds  of  train  miles  and  ton  miles 
are  lumped  together.  A  hundred  tons  carried  one  mile, 
one  ton  carried  a  hundred  miles,  and  five  tons  carried 
twenty  miles  all  count  the  same  in  ton  mile  statistics, 
though  they  may  have  very  different  revenue  values.  All 
criticism  of  this  sort  cuts  both  ways. 

The  traffic  unit  at  present  in  use,  and  which  our  railway 
administrators  prefer  to  the  ton  mile,  is  the  train  mile. 
In  their  reports  to  the  Board  of  Trade  they  give  the 
aggregate  train  mileage  and  the  total  number  of  tons 
carried  during  the  year.  There  they  stop,  but  the 
statisticians  wish  them  to  go  considerably  further.  It 
is  a  comparatively  easy  matter  to  take  the  train  records 
and  add  up  the  mileage  of  all  the  trains  run  during  a 
given  period.  It  is  quite  another  thing  to  record  the 
mileage  of  every  parcel,  every  bale  of  goods,  every  barrel 
of  flour,  and  every  wagon -load  of  coal  that  goes  from 
one  station  to  another  in  the  course  of  a  year.  But  all  that 
would  have  to  be  done  in  order  to  obtain  a  complete 
record  of  the  ton  mileage. 

In  hundreds  of  thousands  of  cases  the  weight  of  a 
consignment,  large  or  small,  would  have  to  be  multiplied 
by  the  distance  it  was  carried,  and  all  these  results  would 
hav^  to  be  added  up  at  the  year's  end.  In  the  case  of  a 
trunk  line  like  the  London  and  North- Western  or  the 
]\Iidland,  the  annual  aggregate  might  run  into  tens  of 
thousands  of  millions.  It  becomes,  in  fact,  an  astronomical 
calculation.     There  is  no  insuperable  difficulty  about  it, 


ACCOUNTS  AND  STATISTICS  66 

however.  Foreign  railways  do  it,  and  in  this  country  the 
North-Eastern  Railway  has  the  ton  mileage  worked  out 
for  the  information  of  the  management  and  their  friends 
on  the  press.  The  shareholders,  however,  have  expressed 
no  strong  curiosity  regarding  it,  and  so  far  they  have 
been  content  with  the  meagre  data  furnished  in  the 
statutory  accounts. 

One  can  quite  understand  railway  officials  hanging 
back  in  a  matter  as  to  which  no  popular  pressure  is  being 
appUed  to  them,  and  the  practical  value  of  which  they 
do  not  admit.  Strictly  speaking  it  is  not  a  question  for 
shareholders  or  the  general  public  so  much  as  for  rail- 
way officials  themselves.  If  the  ton  mileage  data  were 
collected  and  worked  out  as  the  scientific  statisticians 
demand,  they  would  never  get  beyond  a  select  circle  of 
readers.  The  various  railways  might  exchange  their 
figures  with  each  other,  and  a  certain  number  of  copies 
might  be  suppHed  to  the  press. 

Li  those  various  ways  ton  mile  figures  would  be  of 
technical  and  statistical  value.  At  the  very  least  they 
would  be  worth  the  cost  of  preparing  and  printing.  But 
it  cannot  be  fairly  argued  that  they  are  a  sine  qua  non 
of  efficient  and  economical  railway  administration,  and 
that  no  up-to-date  railway  can  afford  to  be  without 
them.  They  are  more  of  the  nature  of  a  statistical 
luxury.  Many  interesting  and  by  no  means  useless 
calculations  could  be  made  with  them  which  hitherto 
we  have  had  to  do  without.  Sir  George  Paish,  in  his 
book  on  The  British  Railway  Position,  has  shown  that 
the  ton  mile  formula  admits  of  great  variety  of  applica- 
tions. Once  the  necessary  data  have  been  obtained,  that 
is  the  weight  of  every  consignment  and  the  distance  it 
is  carried,  the  averages  that  can  be  worked  out  are 
legion.  The  following  are  a  few  examples  of  the  sort  of 
information  that  is  being  demanded  by  scientific  statis- 
ticians. In  the  "  Railway  Accounts  and  Returns  Act  " 
they  have  obtained  a  considerable  instalment  of  them, 
but  the  ton  mile,  which  they  consider  the  corner-stone 
of  their  scheme,  is  still  denied  them  : — 

Ton  mileage  is  weight  multiphed  by  distance. 


56  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

The  train  load  is  obtained  by  dividing  train  mileage 
into  ton  mileage. 

The  car  load  is  obtained  by  dividmg  car  mileage  mto 

ton  mileage.  ,  .  ^     .  j 

For  engine  loads  divide  engme  mileage  mto  ton  and 

passenger  mileage.  . 

For  average  lengths  of  haul  divide  tonnage  mto  ton 

mileage.  .     ..   . ,  x     • 

For  passenger  coaches  per  tram  divide  passenger  train 
mileage  into  carriage  mileage. 

For  goods  wagons  per  train  divide  goods  train  mileage 
into  wagon  mileage. 

For  average  rate  per  ton  per  mile  divide  goods  ton 
mileage  into  goods  receipts.^ 

Examining  these  seriatim  we  find  that  they  all  hang 
upon  the  first — "  Ton  mileage  is  weight  multiphed  by 
distance."  Neither  of  these  essential  factors  is  as  yet 
within  reach.  All  that  the  Board  of  Trade  returns 
furnish  is  the  aggregate  tonnage  and  the  aggregate  train 
mileage  of  the  year.  What  would  be  needed  for  a  record 
of  ton  mileage  is  the  total  number  of  tons  carried  one  mile, 
the  number  carried  two  miles,  the  number  carried  three 
miles,  and  so  on  to  the  longest  haul  on  the  railway. 
Existing  information  falls  far  short  of  that.  It  only 
tells  us  the  aggregate  weight  carried  during  the  year, 
and  the  aggregate  distance  run  by  goods  trains.  That 
teaches  us  virtually  nothing. 

Until  we  know  the  respective  weights  carried  at  each 
distance  from  one  mile  upwards,  nearly  all  the  rest  of  the 
averages  which  Sir  George  Paish  considers  so  desirable 
will  have  a  missing  link.  Train  loads  cannot  be  worked 
out  without  ton  mileage  (the  weight  of  each  item  multi- 
plied by  the  distance  it  travelled),  neither  can  car  loads 
or  engine  loads.  So,  too,  without  ton  mileage  there  can 
be  no  reckoning  of  the  average  length  of  haul,  or  of  the 
average  number  of  coaches  in  a  passenger  train,  or  of 
wagons  in  a  goods  train.  Without  these  details  we 
cannot  ascertain  the  average  rate  per  ton  per  mile.     It 

*  The  British  Railway  Position,  p.  71. 


ACCOUNTS  AND  STATISTICS  57 

is  not  disputed  that  they  would  be  scientifically  valuable 
and  in  a  round-about  way  useful.  There  are,  however,  a 
good  many  other  reforms  at  once  more  practical  and 
more  urgent.  To  mention  only  one,  a  thorough  analysis 
of  working  expenses  is  much  to  be  desired. 

Though  there  may  be  among  statisticians  and  railway 
experts  many  different  opinions,  or  father  many  degrees  of 
enthusiasm,  on  the  subject  of  ton  miles,  absolute  agreement 
exists  as  to  the  great  improvement  which  the  new  railway 
accounts  will  be  upon  the  old  ones.  This  will  be  seen  in  the 
first  of  the  annual  reports  based  on  the  new  schedules  which 
will  be  due  a  year  hence.  But  it  will  be  more  fully 
appreciated  in  the  annual  reports  of  the  Railway  Depart- 
ment of  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  which  the  extended 
statistics  will  be  properly  collated  and  tabulated.  The 
first  of  these  is  not  due,  however,  until  the  autumn  of 
1914,  and  it  will  cover  the  operations  of  1913. 

May  we  hope  that  the  Board  of  Trade  statisticians,  when 
they  are  incorporating  the  results  of  the  new  schedules 
in  their  annual  returns,  will  take  the  opportunity  to  revise 
the  latter  and  modernise  them  ?  They  contain  masses 
of  data  as  to  railway  capitals  and  dividends  which  may 
be  usefully  condensed.  A  good  many  of  the  tables 
are  needlessly  expanded  and  overloaded  with  details  of 
small  value.  Much  space  is  devoted  to  purely  finan- 
cial data  which  might  be  better  occupied  with  operating 
results  of  the  various  railways.  In  a  word,  it  is  trafl&c 
rather  than  finance  that  the  public  are  interested  in. 
Even  shareholders  begin  to  feel  a  little  curious  as  to  how 
their  dividends  are  earned. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  hereafter  operating  results  will 
be  dealt  with  on  modern  lines,  as  in  the  United  States 
and  other  countries  where  they  are  really  believed  in, 
and  not  merely  published  under  compulsion.  Though 
both  the  receipt  and  expenditure  sides  have  hitherto 
been  weak,  the  expenditure  figures  have  been  the  most 
inadequate.  Their  analysis  has  not  been  carried  far 
enough  to  admit  of  comparison  with  the  corresponding 
results  of  other  national  railway  systems.  Distinction 
between  goods  and  passenger  traffic  is  practically  limited 


58  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

to   cross  train  mileage  and  gross  receipts.     But   much 
more  than  that  is  looked  for  now-a-days  from  railway 

statisticians.  t.j-   -j  j      t 

It  is  true  that  receipts  are  elaborately  subdivided,  in 
the  passenger  department  season  tickets,  excess  luggage, 
parcels  and  mails  are  separately  specified,  while  under 
goods  receipts  we  have  merchandise,  live  stock  and 
minerals  distinguished.  Some  interesting  and  instruc- 
tive lessons  might  have  been  drawn  from  these,  if  in 
the  working  expenses  an  attempt  had  been  made  to 
allocate  the  proportions  due  to  passenger  and  goods 
train  mileage.  A  minute  allocation  is  obviously  im- 
possible, but  one  sufficiently  correct  for  comparative 
purposes  should  not  be  insuperably  difficult. 

An  allocation  of  working  expenses  between  passenger 
and  goods  mileage  is  the  ffi-st  requisite  of  scientific  rail- 
way accounting.  Every  efficient  railway  staff  may  be 
assumed  to  already  possess  a  considerable  amount  of  the 
necessary  data.  The  actual  running  cost  of  passenger 
and  goods  trains,  the  repairs  and  renewals  for  each  class 
of  rolling  stock,  and  the  shares  of  traffic  expenses  charge- 
able to  passengers  and  goods  respectively,  should  be  all 
on  record,  or  if  not  they  should  be  easily  estimated. 
The  only  difficulty  would  be  with  the  three  or  four  cate- 
gories of  common  expenses — maintenance  of  way,  general 
charges,  law  expenses,  rates  and  taxes,  etc.  Those 
would  have  to  be  divided  between  the  passenger  and 
goods  mileage  on  some  definite  principle  as  to  which 
railway  accountants  might  easily  differ.  In  the  end, 
however,  a  basis  of  agreement  would  evolve. 

With  separate  expense  accounts  for  passenger  and 
goods  traffic  combined  with  systematic  allocating  of  all 
common  expenses,  we  should  be  able  to  form  an  idea  of 
their  comparative  values.  Train  mileage  figures  would 
have  some  meaning  when  working  expenses  per  mile  could 
be  calculated  as  well  as  receipts  per  mile.  They  are  the 
complement  of  each  other,  and  neither  of  them  is  of 
much  practical  value  by  itself. 

In  this  as  in  other  connections  it  is  a  question  for  our 
railway   managers   if   they   might   not   with   advantage 


ACCOUNTS  AND  STATISTICS  59 

adopt  a  few  more  American  methods  in  our  freight 
service.  At  least  they  might  give  them  a  closer  and  more 
systematic  study  than  they  have  yet  done .  Even  a  railway 
manager  cannot  learn  everything  about  American  rail- 
roading on  a  flying  trip  of  two  or  three  weeks,  most  of 
which  may  be  spent  in  festivity  and  sight-seeing.  These 
hoUday  trips  have  generally  been  limited  to  high  officials 
of  British  roads.  So  far  as  we  have  observed  they 
have  not  included  any  of  our  railway  accountants,  the 
class  who,  next  to  engineers,  have  the  best  right  to  be 
consulted. 

A  few  experts  selected  from  the  Clearing  House  staff 
and  unbiased  in  favour  of  any  individual  railway,  might 
learn  a  great  deal  from  the  statistical  departments  of 
the  principal  American  roads.  Give  them  six  months 
to  master  the  subject  and  to  collect  all  the  necessary 
data ;  then  let  them  come  home,  and  after  full  considera- 
tion report  what  they  have  seen.  They  will,  we  doubt 
not,  be  cordially  received  and  have  ever3^hing  lucidly 
explained  to  them.  They  will  see  in  the  accountants' 
office  how  minutely  every  item  of  revenue  and  ex- 
penditure is  recorded,  how  carefully  it  is  analysed  and 
tabulated,  and  how  the  results  are  passed  on  to  the  heads 
of  the  respective  departments.  They  will  find  passenger 
and  freight  train  accounts  distinguished  from  each  other, 
each  being  credited  with  its  proper  receipts  and  debited 
with  its  proper  share  of  expenditure.  The  fijial  result, 
as  we  have  already  indicated,  is  a  profit  and  loss  account 
for  every  train  run.  It  may  not  be  absolutely  exact, 
but  it  is  at  least  an  honest  approximation,  and  for  com- 
parative purposes  it  has  great  value.  Controversy  still 
exists  as  to  various  points  in  the  operation,  and  roads 
may  differ  even  considerably  in  their  classification  of 
receipts  and  expenses,  but  there  is  a  definite  standard 
recognised  and  being  worked  up  to.  On  our  own  railways 
there  is  no  standard  of  any  kind  or  even  an  approach 
to  it.  Railway  statistics  are  a  still-bom  science  in  this 
country.  *   • 

Having   studied  the   report   of  their  expert   accoun- 
tants, our  railway  managers  might  meet  and  confer  with 


60  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

each  other  as  to  what  action,if  any,  it  calls  for.  Toalayman 
it  seems  that  an  immediate  result  of  it  should  be  the 
formation  of  a  statistical  department  at  the  head  office 
of  every  trunk  line.  Its  duty  would  be  to  analyse  and 
tabulate  the  whole  of  the  accounts,  both  receipts  and 
expenses.  It  might  be  possible  to  run  them  so  fine  that 
railway  managers  might  be  able  to  tell  what  every  train 
earned  and  what  it  cost,  how  many  miles  it  ran,  and  how 
much  per  mile  were  its  earnings  and  expenses.  This, 
carefully  ascertained  and  verified,  would  be  the  train 
mile  unit  which  the  Americans  are  now  preferring  to  the 
ton  mile. 

Many  advantages  might  conceivably  flow  from 
such  an  improved  system  of  accounting.  The  railway 
manager,  knowing  more  or  less  precisely  what  a  given 
train  was  earning,  could  consider  ways  and  means  to 
increase  its  earnings.  Knowing  what  it  cost  to  run, 
he  could  always  be  turning  over  in  his  mind  how  expenses 
were  to  be  reduced.  With  all  these  data  before  Mm  he 
would  have  a  definite  standard  by  which  to  determine 
his  rates.  He  would  see  opportimities  of  putting  on 
special  rates  to  encourage  traffic  capable  of  large  expansion ; 
not  necessarily  foreign  imports  only,  though  they  have 
been  the  chief  objects  of  his  solicitude  hitherto.  He 
might  without  injustice  to  the  foreigner  give  the  British 
producer  a  fair  chance  in  his  own  markets. 


BOOK  SECOND— HISTORICAL 
CHAPTER  VI 

THE  TRANSITION  FROM  ROAD  TO  RAIL 

It  is  one  of  the  ironies  of  social  and  industrial  progress 
that  no  sooner  has  it  perfected  one  of  its  tools  than  it 
discovers  some  superior  novelty.  Then  the  old  tool, 
on  which  generations  of  skill  and  outlay  may  have  been 
spent,  is  thrown  aside.  The  novelty  absorbs  all  the 
thoughts  and  activities  of  the  nation,  and  goes  through 
all  the  usual  stages  of  development,  until  it  in  turn  reaches 
perfection  and  is  ready  to  be  superseded  by  another  new 
discovery. 

In  complete  accordance  with  this  historical  law  of 
evolution  and  transformation,  British  road  traffic  had 
almost  reached  the  limit  of  its  capabilities  when  the  new 
system  of  transportation  was  ushered  in.  Telford  and 
Macadam,  the  great  road-makers  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
retired  from  the  scene  of  their  triumphs  as  Stephenson, 
Brunei  and  the  pioneer  railway  builders  of  the  nineteenth 
century  entered  it.  One  after  the  other  the  pack-horse, 
the  springless  cart,  the  carrier's  wagon  and  the  stage 
coach  had  had  their  day.  Each  of  them  had  done  its 
work  so  well  that  the  traffic  outgrew  their  capacity, 
and  they  had  to  make  way  for  larger  and  quicker  means 
of  transport. 

This  was  pre-eminently  the  case  in  the  second  half  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  when  the  industrial  development 
of  England  was  quickened  beyond  precedent  by  the 
introduction  of  machinery  and  the  growth  of  oversea 
trade.     Even   before   the   middle   of  the   century  road 

61 


62  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

transport  had  begun  to  assume  an  organised  form,  and 
the  public  carrier  had  become  a  public  institution.  The 
turnpike  system  was  then  nearly  a  century  old,  the 
first  act  authorising  tolls  having  been  passed  in  1663 — 
three  years  after  the  Restoration.  Charles  the  Second 
gave  it  his  hearty  support,  and  it  may  be  remembered 
to  his  credit  as  one  of  the  unquestionable  blessings  of  his 
reign.  This  important  Act  (15  Car.  II.  c.  1)  was  applied 
to  the  section  of  the  Great  North  Road  which  rims  through 
the  counties  of  Hertford,  Cambridge  and  Huntingdon, 
and  its  three  toll-gates  were  placed  at  Wadesmill,  Caston 
and  Stilton. 

According  to  Jolm  Ogilby,  the  Cosmographer  Royal 
of  that  day,  there  were  then  eighty-five  main  roads  in 
England  and  Wales,  and  he  mapped  the  whole  of  them 
in  his  Britannia.  At  first  the  extension  of  the  turnpike 
system  was  slow,  but  its  marked  effect  on  the  growth 
of  local  trade  and  the  value  of  property  gradually  excited 
the  envy  of  even  the  least  progressive  parts  of  the  country. 
In  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne  agriculture,  industry  and 
trade  were  still  greatly  localised,  and  consequently  very 
restricted.  In  winter  farmers  could  not  travel  to  market, 
consequently  corn  was  dear  to  the  consumer  and  cheap 
to  the  producer.  London  was  inaccessible  even  to  dis- 
tricts as  near  as  Horsham,  where  in  winter  a  quarter  of 
a  fat  ox  was  commonly  sold  for  fifteen  shillings  and  mutton 
could  always  be  had  at  five  farthings  per  pound. 

But  by  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  turn- 
pikes had  begun  to  tell  on  the  cost  of  transport.  Postle- 
thwayte's  dictionary,  published  in  1745,  has  an  interesting 
article  on  roads,  from  which  we  learn  that  the  cost  of 
carriage  for  goods  and  merchandise  had  of  late  years 
been  greatly  reduced.  The  number  of  wagons  travelling 
regularly  between  London  and  Birmingham  had  in- 
creased to  twenty-five  or  thirty  per  week,  while  the  rate 
per  cwt.  had  declined  from  Is.  to  35.  or  45.  Between 
London  and  Portsmouth  the  old  rate  had  been  75.  per 
cwt.,  and  the  new  one  was  45.  or  55.  Much  of  the  traffic 
on  this  road  consisted  of  Government  stores  for  the 
navy  and  the   British  forces  abroad.     The   Admiralty 


THE  TRANSITION  FROM  ROAD  TO  RAIL    63 

prided  itself  on  the  much  cheaper  transport  it  was  now 
enjoying  as  compared  with  the  corresponding  charges 
during  the  wars  of  Queen  Anne. 

The  western  ports,  Bristol,  Exeter,  Gloucester,  etc., 
were  also  great  gainers  by  the  improved  turnpikes.  The 
carriage  of  wool  from  Exeter  to  London,  which  had 
previously  cost  125.  per  cwt.,  was  now  down  to  8s.,  and 
other  goods  had  been  proportionately  reduced.  Such  a 
wonderful  transformation  as  this  was  not  likely  to  escape 
the  attention  of  so  shrewd  an  observer  as  Adam  Smith. 
In  the  eleventh  chapter  of  his  Wealth  of  Nations  he  thus 
eulogises  it : — 

"  Good  roads,  canals  and  navigable  rivers,  by  dimin- 
ishing the  expense  of  carriage,  put  the  remote  parts  of 
the  country  more  nearly  upon  a  level  with  those  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  town.  They  are  upon  that  account 
the  greatest  of  all  improvements.  They  encourage  the 
cultivation  of  the  remote,  which  must  always  be  the 
most  extensive  circle  of  the  country.  They  are  advan- 
tageous to  the  town  by  breaking  down  the  monopoly  of 
the  country  in  its  neighbourhood.  They  are  advantage- 
ous even  to  that  part  of  the  country.  Though  they 
introduce  some  rival  commodities  into  the  old  market, 
they  open  many  new  markets  to  its  produce.  Monopoly, 
besides,  is  a  great  enemy  to  good  management,  which 
can  never  be  universally  established  but  in  consequence 
of  that  free  and  universal  competition  which  forces 
everybody  to  have  recourse  to  it  for  the  sake  of  self- 
defence." 

The  culminating  stage  in  the  history  of  British  roads 
was  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Then  im- 
provements followed  each  other  rapidly,  until  the  Telford 
and  Macadam  age  was  fully  ushered  in.  The  mere  men- 
tion of  a  few  significant  dates  may  be  more  instructive 
to  the  reader  than  pages  of  elaborate  description : — 

In  1757  Thomas  Telford,  the  greatest  and  most  versa- 
tile engineer  of  his  day,  was  born  at  Eskdale  in  Dumfries- 
shire. His  chief  rival  as  a  road  maker,  John  Loudon 
Macadam,  was  then  a  year  old,  he  having  been  born  in 
1756. 


64  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

From  1783  to  1810  Madacam  carried  on  a  systematic 
inspection  of  the  roads  in  England  and  Scotland,  covering 
about  30,000  miles  of  gromid. 

He  then  published  his  famous  Observations  on  the 
Highways  of  the  Kingdom. 

In  1803  Commissioners  were  appointed  to  improve  the 
roads  in  Scotland,  and  Telford  was  engaged  as  their 
engineer.  He  began  in  the  Highlands,  and  built  the 
splendid  network  of  high-roads  which  ever  since  have 
been  the  joy  of  the  southern  tourist.  His  other  great 
achievement  in  the  north  was  the  turnpike  road  between 
Glasgow  and  Carlisle. 

In  1806  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  Select  Committees 
began  to  study  the  question  of  road  reform,  which  our  own 
local  authorities  are  still  working  upon.  In  1808,  1809 
and  1811  the  investigation  was  resumed,  and  occasionally 
it  bore  fruit  in  the  shape  of  parliamentary  grants  for 
special  roads.  Such  a  grant  was  made  in  1815  for  the 
London  to  Holyhead  road.  The  greater  part  of  this 
was  entrusted  to  Telford,  but  Macadam  did  a  short  piece 
of  it  between  London  and  High  Barnet.  Their  respective 
systems  of  road-making  were  to  be  seen  together  in  that 
neighbourhood,  and  each  had  its  partisans. 

In  1819,  1820  and  1821  Select  Committees  continued 
to  study  the  road  problem,  sometimes  under  Telford's  and 
sometimes  under  Macadam's  tuition.  During  this  period 
grand  schemes  were  started  for  widening  and  straightening 
the  principal  turnpikes,  including  the  Great  North  Road 
and  the  Great  Western.  Frequently  they  needed  financial 
help,  and  every  session  applications  were  made  to  Parlia- 
ment to  extend  the  term  of  their  leases  or  to  allow  them  to 
increase  their  tolls.  As  a  rule  such  petitions  were  readily 
granted,  for  the  value  of  good  roads  was  becoming  apparent 
in  the  rapid  growth  of  trafiic,  both  passenger  and  mer- 
chandise. The  carrier's  cart  and  the  stage  coach  both 
flourished  exceedingly.  So  little  presentiment  was  there 
of  the  coming  revolution  in  transport,  that  during  the 
decade  preceding  the  commencement  of  the  railway  era 
no  less  than  a  thousand  miles  of  new  road  were  built. 

At  the  advent  of  the  railway  the  roads  were  being 


THE  TRANSITION  FROM  ROAD  TO  RAIL    65 

taxed  to  their  full  capacity,  and  the  cost  of  maintaining 
them  was  becoming  a  serious  burden  on  the  ratepayers. 
Rates  and  tolls  together  rendered  them  costly  to  their 
users.  Any  scheme  of  extension  or  of  new  construction 
would  have  been  very  expensive.  Thus  the  railway 
deHvered  the  country  from  a  grave  dilemma  in  providing 
new  channels  for  its  growing  commerce.  It  not  only 
saved  the  people  of  that  day  a  large  expenditure  on  new 
roads,  but  it  lessened  to  a  great  extent  the  cost  of  keeping 
up  the  existing  main  roads.  These  were  the  first  of  a  long 
series  of  boons  which  it  conferred  on  the  nation. 

A  second  set  of  advantages  of  almost  incalculable 
value  which  we  owe  to  the  railway  arose  from  the  cheapen- 
ing of  transportation.  If  this  blessing  had  been  limited 
to  the  existing  traffic  it  would  still  have  been  immense, 
but  it  multiplied  itself  over  and  over  again  by  enlarging 
the  area  of  profitable  transportation.  Distances  which 
were  impracticable  to  the  carrier's  cart  could  be  easily 
covered  by  the  railway.  The  nearer  that  markets  were 
brought  to  each  other,  the  more  business  they  did  with 
each  other.  The  more  they  all  prospered,  the  more 
people  had  to  spend,  the  more  they  travelled,  the  farther 
they  went  afield,  and  the  more  active  economic  life 
became. 

The  effect  of  speed  in  enlarging  the  area  of  transporta- 
tion  was  soon  realised  by  the  original  railway  builders. 
Ingenious  calculations  on  the  subject  were  indulged  in 
by  the  writers  of  the  early  text-books,  notably  by  Dr. 
Lardner.  He  became  (quite  enthusiastic  about  the  re-"^ 
lation  of  speed  to  the*^  radius  of  transportation,  as  the 
following  passage  shows.  He  may  be  partly  responsible 
for  the  speed  craze  which  developed  among  railway 
managers  in  a  later  age.  ^ 

"It  is  evident  that  any  improvement  in  transport  ^ 
which  will  double  its  speed  wiU  double  the  radius  of  this 
circle.  An  improvement  which  will  treble  its  speed  will  in- 
crease the  same  radius  in  a  threefold  proportion.  Now  as 
the  actual  area  or  quantity  of  soil  included  within  such  a 
radius  is  augmented  not  in  the  simple  ratio  of  the  radius 
itself,  but  in  the  proportion  of  its  square,  it  foUows  that  a 


66  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

double  speed  will  give  a  fourfold  area  of  supply,  a  triple 
/      speed  a  ninefold  area  of  supply,  and  so  on." 

^  The  same  idea  has  been  expressed  more  neatly  if  less 
scientifically  by  an  American  economic  writer.  Speaking 
of  the  American  railway  rates  of  twenty  or  thirty  years 
ago,  Mr.  Atkinson  showed  how  the  transportation  charges 
had  become  an  insignificant  element  in  the  price  of 
products.  The  cost  of  delivering  bread  from  the  baker 
to  his  customers  was  a  larger  element  in  the  price  of  the 
bread  than  the  cost  of  getting  the  wheat  from  the  farmer 
to  the  miller  and  the  Sour  from  the  miller  to  the  baker, 
though  one  distance  was  but  a  few  hundred  yards  and  the 
other  as  many  hundred  miles. 

Unfortunately  such  feats  of  cheap  transportation, 
though  possible  on  prairie  roads  admitting  of  heavy  trains 
and  long  hauls,  were  out  of  the  question  in  an  old  coimtry 
handicapped  by  heavy  grades,  over-capitalisation  and 
primitive  methods  of  working.  It  was  a  great  advantage  to 
the  American  railway  pioneers  to  have  a  perfectly  open 
country  to  operate  in.  The  British  pioneers,  on  the  other 
hand,  had  all  the  limitations,  restrictions  and  prejudices  of 
an  old  country  to  contend  with.  They  found  it  difficult 
to  break  away  from  existing  ideas  and  habits.  The 
first  railway  engineers  had  been  chiefly  trained  as  road 
surveyors,  and  they  brought  to  their  new  work  the  minds 
of  road  surveyors. 

Many  of  the  original  lines  were  laid  out  with  the 
grades  and  curves  of  neighbouring  roads.  Their  train 
loads  were  proportionately  light,  or  if  heavy  they  had 
to  be  divided  when  they  came  to  a  stiff  incline.  Some 
railways  had  more  up  and  down  hill  than  level  road, 
and  the  "  humps  "  were  negotiated  in  a  variety  of  ways  : 
Sometimes  by  a  stationary  engine  at  the  top  of  the  incline 
and  sometimes  with  the  help  of  a  "  pusher  "  engine, 
but  generally  by  splitting  up  the  train  and  taking  it  over 
a  few  wagons  at  a  time.  Examples  of  all  these  methods 
are  to  be  found  in  a  description  of  the  Bolton  and  Leigh 
Railway  written  in  1842. 

"  The  speed  of  the  luggage  trains  while  moving  on  this 
line  may  be  stated  as  varying  from  fiifteen  to  twenty 


THE  TRANSITION  FROM  ROAD  TO  RAIL    67 

miles  per  hour,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  line  it  is  exceed- 
ingly dijB&cult  to  state  the  speed  including  stoppages. 
It  is  very  usual  for  an  engine  bringing  merchandise  from 
Liverpool  to  have  trains  of  thirty-four  wagons  in  each. 
With  these  trains  they  commonly  pass  over  the  Kenyon 
line  two  and  a  quarter  miles,  and  stop  at  Leigh  station, 
where  a  portion  of  the  load  is  detached  on  account  of  there 
being  an  inclined  plane  1  in  82  a  mile  and  a  half  long 
between  that  and  the  next  station,  two  and  a  half  miles 
distant.  The  engine  has  to  return  once  or  twice  for  the 
remainder  of  her  load .  From  this  second  station  (Bag  lane) 
the  goods  are  drawn  up  another  inclined  plane  of  1  in 
30  a  mile  and  a  quarter  long  by  a  stationary  engine, 
and  forwarded  by  another  locomotive  engine  about  two 
miles  farther  to  the  top  of  another  inclined  plane  about 
three-quarters  of  a  mile  in  length,  worked  by  stationary 
power.  After  descending  this  latter  incline  by  rope 
they  are  taken  to  the  yard  or  warehouse  by  horses." 

It  was  not  local  lines  only  that  suffered  from  primitive 
engineering  and  rude  construction.  Even  the  main  lines 
started  with  a  great  diversity  of  grades  and  curves.  Ac- 
cording to  Sir  George  Findlay,  while  a  coal  engine  could 
draw  eight  to  ten  times  its  own  weight  on  easy  grades, 
there  were  places  on  the  London  and  North-Western  where 
it  could  draw  only  two  and  a  half  tons  to  one  of  engine, 
while  between  Cromford  and  High  Peak  it  could  draw 
only  its  own  weight.  The  average  grade  of  the  main  line 
admitted  of  5  tons  weight  to  one  of  engine,  but  a  passenger 
express  rimning  at  forty-five  to  fifty  miles  an  hour  between 
London  and  Carlisle  could  not  undertake  more  than  2J 
tons  weight  to  every  ton  of  engine. 

The  primitive  railway  of  1842  was  very  soon  overtasked 
and  in  order  to  keep  up  with  its  work  it  had  to  be  con- 
tinually improving  its  road-bed  and  its  rolling  stock, 
rebuilding  itself  in  fact.  This  was  no  doubt  another  of 
the  causes  which  contributed  to  its  high  average  cost 
per  mile.  Not  only  was  its  capitalisation  swelled  by  con- 
tinual extensions  and  improvements,  but  its  working 
expenses  must  also  have  been  exaggerated  in  consequence. 
The  defects  of  its  youth  seem  to  have  adhered  to  it  long 


68  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

after  it  had  reached  manhood,  and  it  may  be  doubted 
if  they  are  outUved  even  yet.  The  worst  of  them  appears 
to  have  been  excessive  economy  in  engine  power  and  train 
equipment.  How  this  restricted  and  delayed  the  develop- 
ment of  traffic  Mr.  Ac  worth  has  thus  explained  : — 

"In  the  early  days,  with  puny  and  extravagant 
engines,  with  no  signalling  systems,  rudimentary  hand- 
brakes and  a  considerable  and  profitable  passenger 
traffic,  the  difficulty  of  working  a  line  crowded  with 
trains  was  so  great  that  railway  managers  had  no  great 
temptation  to  try  and  attract  low-class  traffic  from 
rival  carriers  by  making  low  rates.  What  traffic  they 
got  was  of  small  bulk  and  high  class,  to  which  speed 
was  of  more  importance  than  cost.  The  exclamation 
of  the  London  and  Birmingham  Railway  director  when 
it  was  suggested  to  him  that  his  highly  aristocratic  line 
should  carry  coal  to  London  in  competition  with  the 
Grand  Junction  Canal  and  the  Newcastle  coal-brigs, 
*  Coal !  why  they'll  be  asking  us  to  carry  dung  next  !  ' 
may  or  may  not  be  apocryphal,  but  it  represents  a  real 
and  not  unjustifiable  attitude  of  mind.  And  indeed, 
had  it  been  possible  for  the  London  and  Birmingham 
to  remain  as  it  began,  a  great  through  line  with  no  exten- 
sions and  no  branches  to  dilute  its  profits,  it  might  well 
have  gone  on  to  this  day  untroubled  with  low-class 
innovations  such  as  coal  and  third-class  passengers,  and 
yet  have  continued  to  pay  without  difficulty  to  its  share- 
holders its  original  10  per  cent,  dividends."  ^ 

One  strong  point  in  favour  of  railways  which  has  never 
been  adequately  impressed  on  the  public,  and  to  which 
their  critics  never  do  justice,  is  the  enormous  effect  they 
had  in  the  way  of  cheapening  transportation.  To-day 
it  costs  just  about  as  much  to  send  a  ton  of  goods  by 
railway  as  it  did  a  century  ago  to  send  a  hundredweight. 
Twenty  to  one  is  about  the  usual  proportion  of  the 
amoimt  of  transportation  that  can  now  be  obtained 
for  a  given  sum  as  compared  with  the  old  cartage  rates. 
The  complex  schedules  of  railway  rates  prescribed  by 
Parliament  disguise  this  important  fact  almost  beyond 
^  Elements  of  Railway  Economics,  p.  63. 


THE  TRANSITION  FROM  ROAD  TO   RAIL    69 

recognition,  but  it  is  none  the  less  true,  and  a  few  examples 
will  demonstrate  it. 

In  describing  the  evolution  of  the  turnpike  system 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  some  of  the  standard  cartage 
rates  were  incidentally  mentioned.  Between  Birming- 
ham and  London,  for  instance,  in  the  days  of  the  pre- 
historic roads,  75.  per  cwt.  was  the  ordinary  charge. 
The  turnpike  system  and  the  improved  cartage  services 
which  it  introduced  gradually  reduced  this  to  35.  or  45. 
per  cwt.  The  distance  by  rail  between  the  two  cities  is 
113  miles,  and  the  rate  about  three- fifths  of  a  penny  per 
ton  per  mile.  On  the  113  miles  this  would  run  to  55.  9d. 
per  ton  as  compared  with  75.  per  cwt.  in  the  roadless  age, 
and  45.  per  c\vt.  in  the  turnpike  days. 

In  the  case  of  Bristol  and  London  the  distance  by  rail 
is  118  miles,  and  the  rate  again  averages  for  general 
merchandise  three-fifths  of  a  penny  per  ton  per  mile,  or  65. 
per  ton  for  the  whole  distance,  as  compared  with  125.  per 
cwt.  on  the  old  roads  and  85.  per  cwt.  on  the  new  ones. 
The  Portsmouth  road  was  a  very  busy  thoroughfare, 
especially  in  war-times.  There  were  many  regular 
carriers  on  it  as  well  as  army  contractors  and  transport 
agents.  Even  here,  though  the  traffic  was  heavy  and 
the  competition  no  doubt  very  keen,  the  cartage  between 
London  and  Portsmouth  seems  never  to  have  fallen 
below  45.  per  cwt.,  and  in  the  pre-turnpike  age  it  had  been 
as  high  as  75.  The  distance  is  about  73  miles,  which 
at  75.  per  cwt.  would  work  out  at  1*15^.  per  mile,  and 
at  45.  per  cwt.  would  be  O'Qd.  per  cwt.  per  mile. 

Railway  charges  for  a  corresponding  distance  will  begin 
at  seven-tenths  of  a  penny  per  ton  per  mile,  or  5s.  per  ton 
for  the  whole  distance.  That  is  for  haulage  alone  and 
excluding  terminals.  The  old  English  carrier  had  no 
terminal  troubles.  He  collected  his  goods  at  the  sender's 
door  and  delivered  them  direct  to  the  consignee.  There 
was  no  demurrage  of  wagons,  no  warehousing,  no  terminal 
extras.  The  old  English  public  carrier  was  self-contained, 
and  his  methods  primitive.  His  scale  of  rates  had  been 
rough-and-ready,  and  his  calculations  had  been  made  by 
rule  of  thumb.     The  refinements  of  mileage  rates  were 


70  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

beyond  him.     They  came  in  with  the  canal,  and  were 
invented  by  parliamentary  lawyers. 

To  trace  out  all  the  intricacies  of  modern  rates  and 
classifications  would  be  an  almost  endless  job.  The 
briefest  and  best  way  to  explain  them  is  to  reproduce 
a  few  specimens  from  contemporary  Acts  of  Parliament. 
These  will  indicate  the  origin  of  separate  tolls  and  haulage 
rates,  maximum  and  minimum  schedules  and  other 
intricacies.  The  latter  began  with  the  canals,  and  were 
extended  first  to  the  early  tramways  and  then  to  the 
pioneer  railways.  The  earliest  table  of  railway  tolls 
appears  to  be  that  of  the  Croydon  and  Wandsworth 
Iron  Road.  It  is  dated  1801,  and  is  based  on  mileage 
rates,  but  with  a  very  limited  classification.  It  reads  as  if 
it  had  been  adapted  from  the  canal  tolls  of  the  period  : — 

Tolls  on  the  Surrey  Iron  Railway 

(Croydon  to  Wandsworth),  1807.  Per  ton 

per  mile 

All  dung  carried  on  the  railway  2d. 

All  limestone,  chalk,  lime  and  other  manure  (except  dung),  clay, 

breeze  ashes,  sand  and  bricks 3d. 

Tin,  lead,  iron,  copper,  stone,  flints,  coal,  charcoal,  coke,  culm, 

fuller's  earth,  com  and  seeds,  flour,  malt  and  potatoes  .       .     4d. 
All  other  goods,  wares  and  merchandise  Qd. 

By  placing  these  original  railway  tolls  alongside  of 
a  contemporary  canal  tariff  their  parentage  wiH  be 
easily  traced.  The  Glamorganshire  Canal  was  operated 
in  1790  with  two  tonnage  rates — 2d.  per  mile  for  minerals 
and  5d.  per  mile  for  merchandise.  But  the  Sheffield 
Canal  tariff  of  1815  shows  some  progress  toward  our 
modern  classification.  It  contains  half-a-dozen  different 
grades  of  freight,  beginning  with  coal,  iron  ore,  manure, 
2d.  per  ton  per  mile ;  advancing  to  limestone,  lime,  clay 
and  bricks,  Sd.  per  mile ;  then  to  lead,  iron,  com,  seeds, 
potatoes,  etc.,  4d.,  and  finishing  with  "  all  other  goods, 
wares  and  merchandise,"  6^.  per  ton  per  mile. 

The  so-called  railways  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  were  mere  tramways,  differing  from  an 
ordinary  road  only  in  having  metals  for  the  vehicles  to 
run  upon.  They  were  governed  by  the  ordinary  cartage 
rates  of  the  district,  which,  like  the  Surrey  Iron  Railway 


THE  TRANSITION  FROM  ROAD  TO  RAIL    71 

tariff,  were  in  general  force  until  the  advent  of  the  steam- 
engine.  As  late  as  1825  one  of  the  old  canal  classifica- 
tions was  in  operation  on  a  South  Wales  line  —  the 
Rhymney.  But  the  natural  effects  of  increasing  traffic 
are  revealed  here  in  a  substantial  reduction  of  rates. 
Taking  it  all  round,  the  Rhymney  Railway  tariff  of 
1825  is  only  50  per  cent,  of  that  of  the  Croydon  and 
Wandsworth  line  in  1801. 

Rhymney  Railway  Tolls,  1825.  Per  ton 

per  mile 

For  all  limestone,  lime,  materials  for  roads,  dung,  compost  and  all 
sorts  of  manures Id. 

Coal,  coke,  culm,  cinders,  stone,  marl,  sand,  clay,  iron,  ironstone, 
iron  ore  and  other  minerals,  building  stone,  pitching  and 
paving  stone,  bricks,  tiles,  slates  and  all  gross  and  unmanu- 
factured articles  and  building  materials  ....  1^. 

Manufactured  or  unmanufactured  iron 2d. 

Lead,  timber,  staves  and  deals,  and  all  other  goods,  wares  and 
merchandise 3d. 

In  1826  we  arrive  at  the  first  fully  equipped  steam 
railway  —  the  Liverpool  and  Manchester,  which  was 
opened  in  that  year.  Previously  interesting  experiments 
had  been  made  by  George  Stephenson  and  others  with 
steam-engines  for  colliery  and  other  special  haulage. 
But  this  was  the  first  scheme  for  a  regular  railway  service 
for  goods  and  passengers.  Peculiar  interest  attaches 
to  the  tables  of  rates  and  fares  with  which  it  started. 
The  freight  rates  are  still  those  of  the  canal  and  the  public 
carrier.  Even  its  classification  differs  very  little  from 
what  had  been  in  use  for  years.  The  chief  distinction 
is  that  a  new  class  is  introduced  between  the  old  third 
and  fourth,  and  there  are  now  five  in  all. 

Liverpool  and  Manchbsteb  Railway  Tolls,  1826.  Per  ton 

per  mile 

For  all  limestone Id. 

Coal,  lime,  dung,  compost  and  material  for  roads  .  .  .  .  l^. 
Coke,  culm,  charcoal,  cinders,  stone,  sand,  clay,  building,  paving 

and  pitching  stones,  flags,  bricks,  tiles  and  slates     .        .        .2d. 
Sugar,  com,  grain,  flour,  dyewoods,  timber,  staves,  deals,  lead, 

iron  and  other  metals 2^d. 

Cotton  and  other  wool,  hides,  drugs,  manufactured  goods  and  all 

other  wares,  merchandise  matters  and  other  things        .       .  3rf. 


72  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

A  specimen  of  one  of  the  earliest  tables  of  passenger 
fares  will  be  as  interesting  a  souvenir  of  the  infancy  of 
our  railway  system  as  any  of  the  goods  tariffs.  Passen- 
gers had  the  option  of  travelling  in  their  own  carriages, 
which  were  fastened  on  a  flat  car,  or  in  one  of  the  rude 
vehicles  provided  by  the  railway  company.  On  some 
lines  no  social  distinctions  were  recognised,  and  the  same 
fare  was  charged  for  all  carriages.  The  people  for  whom 
luxurious  first-class  coaches,  sleeping-cars,  dining-cars 
and  Pullmans  had  afterwards  to  be  run  at  a  substantial 
loss,  sat  in  solitary  state  in  their  family  chariots .  Plebeian 
travellers  were  assessed  as  under  for  distances  of  ten, 
twenty  and  over  twenty  miles. 

Liverpool  and  Manchester  Passenger  Rates,  1825. 

».  d. 
For  every  person  travelling  thereon  not  more  than  10  miles  in  any 

vehicle 16 

Do.        exceeding  10  miles,  but  not  above  20      .        .        .        .26 
Do.     above  20  miles  4    0 

This  triple  scale  was  in  fact  a  rudimentary  zone  system. 
The  uniform  charge  for  any  distance  up  to  ten  miles, 
next  for  any  distance  in  the  second  ten  miles,  and  then 
for  any  distance  over  twenty  miles,  was  an  anticipation 
of  the  twopenny  tube.  Like  the  twopenny  tube  it  was 
an  unsuccessful  experiment,  and  had  to  give  place  to 
mileage  rates. 

In  those  early  days  animals  were  regarded  as  passengers, 
and  often  travelled  by  passenger  train.  They  had  also 
to  pay  on  the  zone  principle,  but  their  sections  were 
longer — fifteen  miles  instead  of  ten.  On  the  Liverpool 
and  Manchester  line  the  first  fifteen  miles  cost  25.  ^d. 
for  "  every  horse,  mule,  ass  or  other  beast  of  draught  or 
burden,  and  for  every  ox,  cow,  bull  or  neat  cattle  carried 
in  or  on  such  carriage."  For  any  distance  in  the  next 
fifteen-mile  zone  the  charge  was  45.  per  head.  Pigs, 
calves,  sheep,  lambs  and  small  cattle  generally  were  95. 
per  head  for  any  distance. 

Goods  traffic  was  not  conducted  very  long  on  the 
haulage  principle.  It  was  soon  discovered  to  be  imprac- 
ticable as  well  as  unprofitable,  and  arrangements  were 


THE  TRANSITION  FROM  ROAD  TO   RAIL    73 

begun  for  undertaking  the  entire  goods  service.  Then 
we  find  tonnage  rates  coming  in,  and  lump  rates  being 
charged  without  reference  to  mileage.  The  Liverpool 
and  Manchester  line  at  an  early  period  of  its  history- 
obtained  powers  "  to  raise  a  separate  fund  of  £127,500 
for  forming  an  establishment  for  the  carriage  of  goods." 
When  that  was  done  a  new  table  was  issued  of  inclusive 
rates,  that  is,  tolls  and  haulage  combined.  There  were 
only  four  classes  in  it,  as  under — 

Carriaqb  Rates  (Tolls  included). 

Per  ton 
For  all  limestone,  dung,  compost,  manure,  materials  for  roads, 
stone,  sand,  clay,  building,  pitching  and  paving  stones,  tiles, 

slates,  timber,  slats  and  deals 85. 

Sugar,  com,  grain,  flour,  dyewoods,  lead,  iron  and  other  metals  .  95. 
Cotton  and  other  wools,  hides,  drugs,  groceries  and  manufactured 

goods lis. 

Wines,  spirits,  vitriol,  glass  and  other  hazardous  goods        .       .     145. 

It  was  many  years  before  an  attempt  was  made  to 
introduce  method  or  science  of  any  kind  into  railway 
rates.  The  pioneer  lines  being  chiefly  short  and  self- 
contained,  each  of  them  went  its  own  way.  Erratic 
rates  and  fares,  as  well  as  erratic  methods  of  working, 
were  the  inevitable  result.  The  long  and  the  short  haul 
difficulty  soon  made  its  appearance,  but  the  terminal 
problem  was  of  later  origin.  On  one  local  line,  the 
Leicester  and  Swannington,  a  twelve-mile  zone  was  adopted. 
Merchandise  carried  more  than  twelve  miles  paid  a  flat 
rate  of  4:d,  per  mile,  presumably  including  terminals. 
But  for  distances  under  twelve  miles  an  extra  6d.  per  ton 
was  levied,  the  total  product  of  the  short  haul  not  being 
considered  sufficient  to  cover  the  cost  of  loading  and 
unloading.     Here  the  question  of  terminals  comes  in. 

Various  other  examples  of  the  long  and  the  short  haul 
difficulty  crop  up  in  the  primitive  rate  books.  The  St. 
Helens  and  Runcorn  Gap  line  had  a  delightfully  simple 
tariff  with  only  two  classes  of  freight  —  mineral  and 
general  merchandise.  Coal  carried  the  whole  length 
of  the  line  had  to  pay  Hd.  per  mile,  but  for  any  shorter 


74  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

distance  the  rate  was  2d.  per  mile.  The  merchandise 
rate  was  a  uniform  4jc?.  per  mile. 

It  is  curious  to  stumble  on  an  old  railway  in  the  north 
of  England  which  graduated  its  rates  according  to  the 
length  of  the  haul  almost  exactly  as  is  being  done  now 
under  the  Acts  of  1888  and  1894.  For  the  first  fourteen 
miles  its  rate  was  V^Od.  per  ton  per  mile;  for  the  next 
six  miles  (fifteen  to  twenty)  it  was  \'26d.  per  mile,  and 
for  all  distances  over  twenty  miles  it  was  \'05d.  per  mile. 
The  merchandise  rate  was  a  uniform  2d.  per  mile.  Doubt- 
less the  heavy  traffic  was  chiefly  minerals,  and  the  rates 
would  be  adjusted  to  the  circumstances  of  the  various 
collieries.  But  it  is  an  agreeable  surprise  to  find  the 
graduated  distance  rates  of  our  own  day  thus  plainly 
anticipated. 

Thus  the  spirit  and  the  traditions  of  the  road  have 
survived  in  our  railway  policy  after  the  road  itself  has  been 
left  a  century  behind.  Even  the  peculiarities  of  its  rates 
and  tolls  have  been  closely  followed,  and  still  exercise 
a  very  confusing  influence  on  the  modern  railway  mind. 


CHAPTER  VII 

A   CENTURY   OF  RAILWAY  BUILDING 

The  history  of  British  railways  is  generally  written 
as  if  there  were  only  one  t3^e  of  railway  and  it  had 
grown  up  from  a  single  origin.  In  reality  there  are 
several  tjrpes,  and  each  of  them  had  an  evolution  of  its 
own.  The  colliery  railway  was  a  familiar  institution 
long  before  the  lirsT — passenger  train  ran  between 
Manchester  and  Liverpool.  A  system  of  transportation 
partly  by  canal  and  partly  by  rail  had  also  been  in 
operation  for  years.  Li  Northumberland  and  in  South 
Wales  short  lengths  of  railway  linked  up  local  canals 
and  bridged  over  gaps  where  the  cost  of  a  water  channel 
would  have  been  prohibitive.  They  also  connected 
collieries  and  ironworks  with  the  nearest  navigable 
water.  They  had  been  tried  and  tested  in  many  ways 
on  a  small  scale  before  the  idea  of  long-distance  lines 
occurred  to  any  one. 

The  first  generation  of  railway  builders  were  small 
people  who  had  no  thought  beyond  the  necessities  of 
their  own  business.  When  steam  traction  came  into  use 
they  experimented  with  it  in  various  ways  as  best  suited 
themselves  and  their  circumstances.  Sometimes  they 
used  stationary  engines  at  the  top  of  an  incline,  and  some- 
times a  rude  kind  of  locomotive.  As  yet  they  had  no 
idea  of  speed,  and  their  locomotives  did  not  often  travel 
much  faster  than  an  ordinary  cart.  On  inclines  it  was 
not  expected  to  do  more  than  the  usual  three  miles  an 
hour. 

Between  the  primitive  colliery  railway  and  the  regular 
passenger  line  came  the  combined  rail  and  canal  system. 

76 


76  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

But  this  partnership  did  not  last  long.  The  railway, 
which  had  been  at  first  intended  as  an  auxiliary  to  the 
canal,  ultimately  absorbed  it.  One  of  our  principal 
trunk  lines — ^the  Midland — ^is  said  to  have  had  a  humble 
origin  of  this  sort,  which  is  thus  described  in  a  recent 
history  of  the  company  : — 

"  The  first  portion  of  the  Midland  Railway  constructed 
on  modern  principles,  worked  by  locomotives,  and  convey- 
ing passengers  as  well  as  minerals,  was,  beyond  all 
question,  the  line  from  Leicester  to  Swannington.  It 
was  the  earliest  line  of  railway  now  belonging  to  the 
Midland,  constructed  by  George  Stephenson  and  his 
son  Robert  on  the  same  plan  which  they  had  previously 
introduced  with  such  great  success  between  Liverpool 
and  Manchester.  Not  only  the  engineers,  but  the  first 
manager,  Mr.  George  Vaughan,  the  locomotive  men,  the 
man  to  work  the  incline,  the  platelayers,  the  guard,  were 
all  brought  from  the  Liverpool  and  Manchester  line  to 
instruct  the  local  men  to  become  proficient  in  railway 
management ;  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Liverpool 
and  Manchester  were  also  adopted.  The  only  difference 
between  the  two  railways  was  that  whereas  the  Liverpool 
and  Manchester  was  a  double  line  and  had  both  passenger 
and  goods  trains,  the  Leicester  and  Swannington  was 
a  single  line  and  had  mixed  trains  carrying  both  passengers 
and  minerals.  By  this  means  the  new  railway  system 
was  brought  down  from  the  north,  where  it  had  hitherto 
alone  existed,  into  the  very  centre  of  England." 

Our  three  classes  of  railway  trafl&c,  minerals,  merchan- 
dise and  passengers,  represent  distinct  types  of  railway 
which  came  into  existence  one  after  the  other.  Beyond 
doubt  the  mineral  railway  is  the  oldest  of  the  three. 
The  practice  of  running  heavy  coal  wagons  on  wooden 
rails  is  traceable  back  into  the  seventeenth  century. 
Previous  to  1788  the  rail  itself  was  flanged  and  not  the 
wheel,  but  in  that  year  William  Jessop  had  the  happy 
inspiration  to  transfer  the  flange  to  the  wheel.  This 
rendered  possible  a  great  increase  of  speed  combined  with 
greater  safety.  The  eminent  engineer,  Mr.  James 
Brunlees,  has  described  it  as  "  an  organic  change  which 


A  CENTURY  OF  RAILWAY  BUILDING      77 

has  been  the  forerunner  of  the  great  results  accomplished 
in  modern  travelling  by  railway." 

The  impetus  given  to  railway  building  by  the  flanged 
wheel  was  strengthened  by  various  improvements  wluch 
quickly  followed  in  the  manufacture  of  rails.  Cast  iron 
was  in  course  of  time  superseded  by  wrought  iron.  Iron 
bars  were  rolled  by  maclnnery  instead  of  being  hammered 
out  by  hand.  Schemes  for  new  iron  roads — "  train  "  or 
"  drain  "  roads  as  they  were  caUed — multiplied  so  rapidly 
that  Parliament  resolved  to  extend  to  them  the  super- 
vision which  it  already  exercised  over  schemes  for  new 
canals.  In  June  1799  a  committee  which  had  been 
appointed  to  consider  the  question  recommended  that 
"  The  Standing  Orders  of  the  House  of  the  7th  May,  1794, 
relating  to  Bills  for  making  navigable  canals,  aqueducts 
and  the  navigation  of  rivers,  or  for  altering  any  Act  of 
Parliament  for  either  or  any  of  those  purposes,  be  ex- 
tended to  Bills  for  making  any  ways  or  roads  commonly 
called  railways  or  drain  roads." 

Such  was  the  casual  and  innocent-looking  origin  of 
what  is  now  known  as  "  appljdng  for  parliamentary 
powers  " — ^an  evil  custom  that  developed  into  a  costly 
and  obstructive  system  of  legal  blackmail.  Of  all  the 
errors  and  abuses  with  which  our  railway  builders  are 
chargeable  it  is  the  worst  and  the  least  excusable.  In 
nine  cases  out  of  ten  the  parliamentary  duels  which  have 
to  be  fought  over  new  railway  projects  are  not  only 
useless  but  wasteful,  and  often  harmful.  Instead  of 
checking  bad  and  unnecessary  schemes  it  has  encouraged 
their  promotion.  At  the  same  time  it  has  been  a  cloak 
for  secret  bargains  and  agreements  contrary  to  the 
public  interests,  and  even  more  so  to  the  interests  of  the 
railways. 

In  1904  it  was  estimated  by  a  competent  authority 
that  up  to  that  date  no  less  than  £90,000,000  had  been 
spent  on  preliminary  surveys  and  parliamentary  expenses 
out  of  a  total  of  £1,200,000,000  of  railway  capital.  For  the 
then  existing  mileage  (22,000  miles)  this  was  equivalent  to 
fully  £4,000  per  mile.  Often  the  actual  building  of  the  rail- 
way did  not  cost  so  much.     At  the  outset  parliamentary 


78  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

expenses  were  so  moderate  that  reasonable  exception 
could  not  be  taken  to  them.  In  the  very  year  that  they 
were  made  compulsory  on  the  promoters  of  new  railways 
(1799)  a  Bill  was  presented  to  Parliament  for  a  short 
line  from  Carno  Mill  to  Cardiff,  a  distance  of  twenty-six 
miles  with  eighteen  miles  of  branches.  The  expense  of 
obtaining  the  Act  was  estimated  at  £894  175.,  and  the 
entire  estimate  for  land  and  construction  was  £31,105,  an 
average  of  £1,200  per  mile  if  we  reckon  the  main  line 
alone,  and  of  only  £1,000  if  we  include  the  branches. 

In  these  early  days  neither  promoters  nor  lawyers  nor 
railway  contractors  had  any  idea  of  the  rich  harvest  that 
lay  before  them.  It  did  not  come  in  sight  until  the 
railway  mania  nearly  half  a  century  later.  The  financiers 
of  1799  were  mere  children  compared  with  their  successors 
of  the  King  Hudson  age.  They  had  no  suspicion  of  the 
possibilities  of  speculative  capitalisation,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  public  had  no  suspicion  of  its  dangers.  But  we 
who  have  to  pay  not  only  railway  freights  but  public 
rates  and  taxes  on  grossly  inflated  capitals  can  devoutly 
wish  that  our  railway  finance  had  had  a  more  sane  and 
sober  youth. 

Perhaps  we  have  little  right  to  reproach  our  grandfathers 
with  their  extravagance  as  railway  builders.  All  or 
nearly  all  the  extravagances  which  they  introduced  we 
continue  with  very  little  change.  As  often  as  not  the 
abuses  of  their  time  have  been  aggravated  rather  than 
reformed.  The  parliamentary  and  financial  leeches 
flourish  as  luxuriantly  as  ever.  The  legal  blackmail 
which  has  to  be  paid  on  railway  Bills,  large  and  small, 
is  if  anything  heavier  than  ever.  We  still  bear  the  shame 
of  loading  down  our  railways  with  preliminary  expenses 
to  an  extent  that  compels  them  to  charge  high  rates  in 
order  to  obtain  even  the  most  inflnitesimal  return  on 
their  outlay.  In  this  respect  we  enjoy  an  evil  pre- 
eminence which  no  other  nation  envies. 

Much  might  be  said  about  the  colliery  railway  as  an 
interesting  pioneer,  but  we  must  hasten  on  to  the  second 
type—the  commercial  railway.  The  earliest  example 
of  it  is  the  London  and  Croydon  line,  or,  to  give  it  its 


A  CENTUKY  OF  RAILWAY  BUILDING      79 

original  title,  the  Surrey  Iron  Railway.  It  ran  from 
Wandsworth  to  Croydon,  a  distance  of  less  than  ten  miles. 
It  was  designed  exclusively  for  goods  traffic,  and  had  no 
passenger  trains.  Practically  it  was  a  public  toll-road 
on  which  any  one  might  travel  in  his  own  vehicle.  The 
company  provided  no  rolling  stock  and  did  no  carrying 
on  their  own  account.  In  its  organisation,  methods  of 
working  and  scale  of  charges  the  line  closely  followed  the 
analogy  of  the  then  popular  canals.  Its  up-traffic  from 
Croydon  to  Wandsworth  consisted  of  agricultural  pro- 
duce, chalk,  flint,  fuller 's-earth  and  other  heavy  freight, 
while  the  return  loading  was  chiefly  coal  and  manure. 

A  diligent  explorer  in  the  pamphlet  department  of  the 
British  Museum  has  made  the  interesting  discovery  that 
the  promoters  of  the  London  and  Croydon  line  had 
ambitious  hopes  of  carrjdng  it  by  degrees  down  to 
Portsmouth.  They  obtained  parliamentary  powers  for 
two  additional  sections — ^the  Croydon,  Merstham  and 
Godstone  being  one,  and  the  Godstone  to  Reigate  another. 
But  the  second  section  stopped  halfway  at  Merstham, 
and  after  struggling  on  for  thirty  years  it  was  bought  in 
1838  by  the  Brighton  Railway  Company,  who  closed  it. 
The  original  Surrey  Iron  Railway  lingered  on  for  another 
eight  years,  until  1846,  when  the  rails  were  taken  up 
and  sold. 

Between  the  Surrey  Iron  Railway  of  1801  and  the 
Stockton  and  Darlington  of  1821,  which  is  the  next  land- 
mark in  the  history  of  the  British  railway,  seven  or  eight 
experiments  were  made  in  different  parts  of  the  country. 
In  1802  a  line  eleven  miles  long  was  built  in  connection 
with  the  Tredegar  Ironworks  in  Monmouthshire  at  a 
cost  of  £45,000,  or  £4,000  a  mile.  In  1809  a  similar 
road  in  the  Forest  of  Dean  cost  £125,000  for  seven  and 
a  half  miles,  equal  to  £16,600  per  mile.  The  others 
ranged  from  £1,400  to  £5,000  per  mile,  and  all  of  them 
seem  to  have  been  intended  for  goods  only.  The 
Stockton  and  Darlington  was  originally  planned  on  the 
same  lines,  and  only  by  degrees  did  it  develop  into  a 
modern  railway  carrying  passengers  as  well  as  goods. 

Out  of  the  very  varied  and  chequered  experience  of 


80  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

the  Stockton  and  Darlington  Railway  may  be  said  to 
have  grown  the  four  distinctive  features  of  modern 
railway  service — first,  steam  traction ;  second,  combined 
goods  and  passenger  traffic ;  third,  combined  ownership 
of  road  and  rolling  stock;  fourth,  a  monopoly  user  of 
both.  Its  success  had  an  immediate  effect  in  other 
districts  where  the  new  form  of  traction  was  already 
engaging  attention.  This  was  particularly  the  case  in 
Lancaslure,  and  above  all  in  the  cotton  trade.  The 
canals  were  then  in  the  heyday  of  their  prosperity,  and 
making  a  bad  use  of  it.  For  very  poor  services  they  were 
making  exorbitant  charges  and  deliberately  provoking 
unpopularity  by  petty  insolence  and  tyranny. 

Liverpool  at  last  threw  down  a  challenge.  In  October 
1824  the  prospectus  of  a  new  railway  was  issued,  the 
capital  asked  for  being  £400,000.  The  money  was  raised 
and  a  Bill  introduced  in  the  session  of  1825.  The  canal 
interests  organised  such  a  formidable  opposition  that  it 
was  thrown  out.  But  next  year  it  reappeared,  and  this 
time  it  got  through.  The  promoters  were  equally 
fortunate  in  planning  and  executing  the  line.  Not  imtil 
the  eleventh  hour  did  they  decide  in  favour  of  steam 
against  animal  traction,  and  it  was  George  Stephenson's 
"  Rocket  "  that  turned  the  scale.  It  triumphed  over 
horse  traction,  stationary  engines  and  all  other  proposed 
means  of  propulsion.  Its  average  speed  of  fourteen 
miles  an  hour,  rising  on  occasion  to  double  that  rate,  put 
everything  else  out  of  court. 

So  far  these  pioneer  railways  had  been  purely  local, 
designed  for  local  service  and  paid  for  with  local  capital. 
But  now  a  higher  stage  had  been  reached,  and  the  question 
of  building  trmik  lines  to  traverse  the  country  from  end 
to  end  came  up.  It  is  surprising  how  quickly  the  boldest 
sort  of  proposals  were  put  forward,  and  still  more  so 
how  little  attention  was  paid  to  them,  though  occasion- 
ally they  were  brilKant  and  far-seeing.  Such  a  forecast 
was  that  of  Thomas  Gray,  who  as  early  as  1820  had 
pubhshed  Observations  for  a  General  Railway.  What  he 
proposed  was  in  fact  a  national  railway  network.  It  was 
to  consist  of  six  trunk  lines  radiating  from  London,  with 


A  CENTURY  OF  RAILWAY  BUILDING      81 

branches  linking  up  all  the  towns  and  villages  along 
each  route. 

Earlier  still,  namely  on  the  11th  February,  1800,  a 
paper  had  been  read  at  the  Newcastle  Literary  Society, 
by  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Denton,  advocating  the  extension  of 
the  colliery  railways  plan  to  the  general  carriage  of  goods 
throughout  the  country.  Another  apparently  quixotic 
scheme  was  that  of  Mr.  R.  L.  Edge  worth  for  a  special 
highway  out  of  London  which  for  the  first  ten  miles  should 
have  four  lines  of  railway  on  it  worked  by  stationary 
engines.  In  1822  another  railway  enthusiast — a  London 
engineer  named  William  James — projected  a  "  Central 
Junction  Railway  or  Tramway,"  which  was  to  strike  a 
bee-line  from  London  to  Stratford-on-Avon.  There  was 
a  jBne  touch  of  imagination  here,  but  it  did  not  suffice  to 
save  the  scheme.  Mr.  James's  labour  was  not  wholly 
lost,  however,  as  it  brought  him  to  the  notice  of  the 
promoters  of  the  Liverpool  and  Manchester  Railway, 
who  engaged  him  to  make  the  surveys  for  their  line. 

As  it  happened,  the  trunk  lines  of  the  United  Kingdom 
were  not  destined  to  spring  ready-made  from  the  brain 
of  any  ingenious  projector.  They  originated  in  quite 
another  way — ^that  is,  in  the  orthodox  British  way 
familiarly  known  as  "  muddling  through."  All  of  them 
had  an  adventurous  youth  not  without  a  dash  of  romance. 
Some  of  them  had  a  hard  struggle  to  get  into  London, 
and  some  had  a  hard  struggle  to  get  out  of  it.  Not  one 
of  them  has  properly  planned  terminals  according  to 
modem  ideas,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  they  can  ever  be 
thoroughly  modernised.  Of  the  railways  which  started 
from  London,  the  most  notable  are  the  London  and  North- 
western, the  Great  Western,  the  Great  Northern,  the 
London  and  South- Western,  the  Brighton  and  the  South- 
Eastern.  Those  which  started  in  the  provinces  and  had 
to  fight  their  way  into  London  later  on  were  the  Great 
Central,  Great  Eastern,  Midland,  and  London,  Chatham 
and  Dover. 

In  looking  back  on  the  century's  work  of  our  railway 
builders  we  see  22,000  miles  of  the  most  solidly  constructed 
railway  in  the  world.     Running  on  it,  there  are  said  to  be 


82  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

20,000  locomotives,  70,000  passenger  vehicles  and  1,300,000 
goods  and  mineral  wagons.  Working  the  traffic  there  is 
an  army  of  600,000  employees.  In  the  course  of  a  year 
they  move  1,325  million  passengers,  410,000  million  tons 
of  minerals  and  114  million  tons  of  merchandise.  To 
measure  the  work  of  such  a  gigantic  organisation  and  to 
judge  whether  or  not  it  is  living  up  to  its  full  powers  and 
opportunities,  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  economic 
studies  of  our  time. 

It  would  be  a  tedious  task  to  review  in  detail  the  whole 
century  of  British  railway  building.  Only  its  most 
superficial  results  are  to  be  found  in  the  official  reports 
of  the  railway  companies,  or  in  the  annual  statistics  of 
the  Board  of  Trade.  Both  of  these  exhibit  magnificent 
totals,  but  they  are  subject  to  many  drawbacks  and 
qualifications.  However  weU  they  begin,  the  fimal 
results  are  invariably  meagre  and  disappointing.  As  a 
rule  dividends  are  an  insignificant  fraction  of  the  gross 
receipts.  The  high  rates  and  charges  which  have  to  be 
paid  by  the  traders  for  the  use  of  the  railways  contrast 
badly  with  the  poor  returns  which  the  shareholders  receive 
on  their  capital.  These  two  misfortunes  are  due  mainly 
to  two  causes — over-capitalisation  and  expensive  working. 

They  are  the  crux  of  the  railway  problem  of  to-day, 
and  they  will  be  still  more  important  in  the  railway 
problem  of  to-morrow.  Labour  unrest,  higher  wages, 
heavier  rates  and  taxes,  official  interference,  the  discon- 
tent of  traders,  and  all  other  railway  grievances  resolve 
themselves  finally  into  diminishing  profits  and  dividends. 
This  has  for  some  years  past  been  a  burning  question  with 
railway  boards  and  at  shareholders'  meetings.  Many 
isolated  and  haphazard  attempts  have  been  made  to 
deal  with  it,  but  so  far  the  results  have  been  disappoint- 
ing. The  old  suicidal  poHcy  of  competition  is  said  to 
have  been  abandoned,  and  no  doubt  it  has  been  honestly 
and  sincerely  on  most  railways,  if  not  on  all.  But  what- 
ever the  results  may  actually  be  they  have  not  as  yet 
assumed  a  very  palpable  form  in  the  accounts. 

As  far  as  can  be  judged  from  this  meagre  information, 
the  remedy  has  as  yet  had  a  very  limited  effect.     Com- 


A  CENTURY  OF  RAILWAY  BUILDING      83 

pared  with  the  enormous  amount  of  overlapping  which 
there  is  known  to  be  on  our  railway  system  as  a  whole, 
all  the  co-operative  schemes  yet  put  in  operation  can 
hardly  have  scratched  the  surface  of  the  evil.  Evidently 
much  more  drastic  action  will  be  needed  to  effect  even 
a  fraction  of  the  reform  that  is  both  possible  and  impera- 
tive. If  a  commission  of  independent  experts  could  be 
empowered  to  investigate  all  the  train  services  in  the 
United  Kingdom  and  to  report  every  case  of  duplication, 
leakage  or  waste,  its  report  might  be  appalling.  Some- 
thing of  this  sort  will  have  to  be  done,  however,  before 
the  public  are  roused  to  a  fit  sense  of  the  gravity  of  the 
question. 

The  savings  that  can  be  effected  by  pooling  agreements 
between  two  or  even  three  companies  at  competing  points 
are  a  bagatelle  beside  what  might  be  done  if  a  similar 
reform  were  being  undertaken  on  national  lines.  As  a 
concrete  example  let  us  take  the  coal  traffic  of  the  United 
Kingdom  and  try  to  form  an  idea  of  the  possible  economies 
which  might  be  effected  in  that  one  branch  of  traffic. 
The  first  discovery  we  may  make  is  that  nearly  twice  as 
much  rolling  stock  is  employed  in  it  as  would  be  needed 
if  duplication  could  be  entirely  eliminated.  With  half 
the  number  of  engines  and  wagons  to  handle  there  would 
be  a  proportionate  amount  of  labour  saved.  There  would 
be  a  proportionate  reduction  in  the  shunting  and  mar- 
shalling of  trains.  There  would  be  a  proportionately 
smaller  area  occupied  by  yards  and  sidings.  There  might 
be  a  great  decrease  in  the  number  of  coal  wharves  and 
depots  in  London  and  other  great  cities.  The  crowding 
of  main  lines  with  coal  trains  would  be  immensely  relieved. 

Very  probably  two -thirds  of  the  coal  wagons  now  in 
use — or  supposed  to  be  in  use — could  do  all  the  haulage 
and  distribution  actually  required.  But  they  would  have 
to  be  as  far  as  possible  under  one  control.  The  chief 
coal-carrying  lines — ^there  are  not  more  than  haK-a- 
dozen  of  them  altogether — might  share  groups  of  collieries 
amongst  them,  and  as  each  group  could  be  best  served 
by  a  particular  route,  there  would  always  be  full  loading 
for  the  trains.     They  would  also  have  quick  loading  and 


84  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

a  straight  run  to  their  destination.  It  might  also  be 
arranged  that  coal  trains  should  seldom  have  to  break 
up  en  route,  but  that  as  far  as  possible  they  should  run 
soHd  to  the  end  of  their  journey. 

In  London  alone  the  price  of  coal  could  be  reduced 
at  least  20  per  cent,  by  a  better  system  of  carriage  and 
distribution.  At  present  coal  trains  come  up  from  the 
collieries  made  up  anyhow.  There  may  be  wagons  for 
a  dozen  different  districts  as  far  apart  as  Hammersmith, 
Fulham,  Kensington,  Shoreditch  and  Canonbury  all 
coupled  together.  The  train  has  in  that  case  to  stop  at 
Willesden  Junction,  and  two  or  three  wagons  have  to 
be  sent  to  one  place,  two  or  three  more  to  another,  and 
so  on  until  they  are  all  got  rid  of.  After  a  while  they  have 
all  to  be  gathered  together  again  and  a  return  train  made 
up  at  Willesden.  The  expense  of  distributing  the  coal 
after  it  reaches  London  may  be  as  great  as  that  of  hauling 
it  150  or  200  miles  from  the  colHeries. 

The  various  branches  of  goods  traffic  might  be  taken 
one  after  the  other  and  examined  from  the  point  of  view 
of  scientific  and  economical  operation.  The  special 
tests  of  paying  traffic  are  the  full  wagon  load  and  the 
full  train  load.  The  larger  the  area  of  collection  the 
easier  it  wiU  be  to  get  full  loads  not  only  occasionally  but 
regularly.  In  the  United  Kingdom  the  areas  of  collection 
are  small  to  start  with,  and  in  most  cases  more  railways 
have  crowded  into  them  than  they  can  possibly  support. 
The  effect  has  been  not  only  duplication  of  service  but 
triplication,  and  even  at  times  quadruphcation .  A  railway 
rate  would  require  to  be  very  profitable  in  order  to  main- 
tam  three  or  four  men  doing  the  work  of  one  or  two. 

That  is  what  is  going  on  with  a  large  part  of  the  goods 
traffic  of  British  railways.  It  is  the  root  cause  of  heavy 
working  expenses  and  slender  dividends.  If  it  could  be 
taken  in  hand  as  a  great  national  question  a  radical  cure 
might  be  effected.  But  it  cannot  be  cured  by  casual  nego- 
tiations between  individual  railways.  A  pooling  arrange- 
ment here  and  another  there  cannot  touch  the  fringe  of 
this  problem.  It  must  be  attacked  as  a  whole,  and  on 
the  broadest  possible  lines. 


A  CENTURY  OF  RAILWAY  BUILDING      85 

Railway  directors  and  managers  do  not  seem  to  see  that 
in  the  interlacing  and  overlapping  of  traffic  the  nation - 
alisers  will  find  their  strongest  and  most  practical  argu- 
ment. Such  conditions  have  been  proved  by  many  years' 
experience  to  be  in  the  liighest  degree  wasteful  and 
improvident.  A  moderate  amount  of  thinking  will  show 
that  they  could  not  possibly  be  anything  else.  Duplica- 
tion of  work  is  the  direct  negation  of  Adam  Smith's 
classical  doctrine  of  the  division  of  labour.  It  has  never 
been  carried  further  in  any  industry  than  in  the  goods 
traffic  of  British  railways,  and  reform  of  the  evil  has 
hardly  begun  yet. 

When  everybody  is  clamouring  to  get  all  he  can  out 
of  the  railways  there  will  be  no  alternative  for  them  but 
to  get  all  they  can  out  of  the  public.  Good  and  well  if 
they  first  get  all  they  can  out  of  themselves.  Not  by 
raising  rates,  increasing  terminal  charges  and  curtailing 
privileges,  but  in  a  much  bolder  fashion — by  reducing 
the  number  of  half -loaded  wagons  and  half-empty  trains. 
In  this  direction  there  are  probably  pounds  to  be  saved 
for  every  extra  shilling  that  can  be  extracted  from  indig- 
nant traders.  To  correct  past  errors  of  over-building 
and  over-competition  in  "  pubHc  facilities  "  is  what  the 
crisis  most  clearly  calls  for. 

,  Railway  transportation  in  the  United  Kingdom  has 
become  a  question  of  such  magnitude  and  complexity 
that  even  professionals  may  well  hesitate  to  dogmatise 
upon  it.  But  there  are  some  broad  features  on  which 
even  non-professional  judgment  may  be  safely  expressed. 
Of  these  one  of  the  most  obvious  is  that  the  economic 
value  of  railway  operations  must  depend  greatly  on  the 
degree  of  organisation  which  is  brought  to  bear  upon  them. 
The  final  test  of  their  efficiency  and  economy  is  maximum 
of  work  done  combined  with  minimum  waste  of  power. 
By  this  phrase  it  is  not  engine  power  alone  that  is  meant. 
It  includes  the  collection  and  sorting  of  the  traffic  as  well 
as  the  hauling.  In  fact  hauling  is  the  simplest  and  most 
uniform  of  railway  operations.  The  proper  loading  of 
trains  is  much  more  difficult  and  demands  a  great  deal  more 
anxious  thought  than  moving  them  after  they  are  loaded. 


86  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

British  railways  seem  to  have  been  expressly  planned 
to  render  full  and  profitable  loading  as  difficult  as  possible. 
The  main  lines  intersect  each  other  wherever  they  have 
a  chance.  They  never  miss  a  small  town  on  the  route 
that  can  be  reached  by  a  branch  line  of  twenty  or  thirty 
miles.  To  get  into  a  city  of  any  importance  they  will 
go  many  miles  out  of  their  way.  They  build  the  most 
expensive  stations  and  depots  in  decajdng  districts  where 
the  traffic  is  evidently  on  the  wane. 

Thanks  to  this  superabundance  of  railway  routes, 
stations,  terminals,  and  train  services,  the  traffic,  instead 
of  being  concentrated  at  the  smallest  number  of  points, 
is  scattered  over  the  largest  possible  number.  Conse- 
quently it  has  to  be  handled  in  small  quantities,  so  that 
even  one  railway  could  not  make  a  fat  living  out  of  it. 
But  wherever  there  happens  to  be  enough  to  furnish 
decent  train  loads,  two  or  three  rival  lines  are  sure  to  have 
rushed  in  to  scramble  for  it.  This  is  the  original  and 
fundamental  cause  of  light  loading.  It  lies  too  deep 
and  goes  too  far  back  in  our  railway  history  to  be  easily 
removed.  Certainly  no  amount  of  private  bargaining 
between  railway  companies  will  produce  a  sufficient 
concentration  of  traffic  to  ensure  pa3dng  train  loads  for 
several  lines  even  where  the  traffic  is  heaviest. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

ELECTRIC  RAILWAYS 

The  electric  railway  is  not  merely  a  great  advance 
on  the  steam  railway,  but  it  is  in  many  ways  a  new 
departure.  It  is  more  than  a  new  form  of  traction,  it 
is  going  to  revolutionise  railway  methods  and  to  upset 
nearly  all  the  ideas  and  habits  of  the  old  school  of  railway 
men.  It  may  also  open  up  a  new  era  in  railway  economics 
and  finance.  So  far  the  electric  railway  has  cost  on  an 
average  more  per  mile  to  build  than  a  steam  railway 
would  under  ordinary  conditions,  but  against  that  may 
be  set  a  number  of  advantages  in  working.  It  can  go 
where  no  other  kind  of  railway  would  nowadays  be 
thought  of.  For  underground  passenger  traffic  steam 
locomotives  are  no  longer  conceivable.  They  will  also 
have  to  be  gradually  banished  from  tunnels  of  any  con- 
siderable length.  In  such  cases  electric  traction  has 
become  indispensable. 

In  frequency  of  service  the  steam  railway  has  been 
left  far  behind  by  its  new  rival.  Out  of  that  advantage 
will  arise  several  others,  both  practical  and  financial. 
The  electric  train  of  from  three  to  six  coaches  is  much 
more  manageable  than  a  steam  train  of  from  eight  to 
twelve  coaches.  It  requires  less  haulage  power  and  less 
handling.  Running  frequently,  it  has  more  regular 
loads  and  fewer  empty  seats.  In  proportion  to  the 
number  of  passengers  carried  it  needs  a  much  smaller 
quantity  of  rolling  stock.  Its  short  trains  require  only 
short  platforms  and  less  costly  stations  altogether.  An 
enormous  saving  can  be  effected  in  shunting  and  making 
up  trains.     Electric  trains  can  be  nearly  always  running, 

87 


88  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

while  steam  trains  spend  a  large  part  of  their  time  in 
docks  or  in  sidings.  Sometimes  they  cost  about  as  much 
to  keep  them  standing  as  to  run  them. 

In  these  various  respects  useful  comparisons  may  be 
drawn  between  the  old  and  the  new  styles  of  railway 
traction.  They  may  help  us  to  discover  more  definite 
standards  of  railway  efficiency  than  the  very  vague  and 
unsatisfactory  ones  we  have  to  be  content  with  at  present. 
They  will  show  us  how  misleading  are  the  popular  com- 
parisons of  railways  according  to  their  cost  per  mile  of 
line,  without  taking  into  account  the  number  of  tracks, 
the  length  of  sidings,  the  weight  of  the  metals,  and  the 
character  of  the  road  bed.  Such  comparisons  produce 
a  bewildering  diversity  of  results  which  is  worse  than 
no  result  at  all.  It  stands  out  in  violent  contrast  with 
the  significant  uniformity  of  the  returns  on  capital  cost 
which  has  been  already  remarked  upon  with  regard  to 
steam  railways. 

It  further  confirms  and  illustrates  our  opinion  that  the 
best  test  of  railway  efficiency  is  the  average  percentage 
of  return  on  capital  expenditure.  On  this  basis  all  kinds 
of  railways  can  be  fairly  compared  with  each  other. 
Whether  they  be  single  or  double  lines,  heavy  or  light 
lines,  urban  or  rural  lines  does  not  make  any  serious 
difference.  If  they  have  been  sensibly  planned  to  suit 
local  conditions  and  well  adapted  to  the  traffic  they 
have  to  carry,  there  should  be  approximately  as  good  a 
return  on  a  £6,000  per  mile  line  as  on  one  that  has  cost 
twenty  times  as  much.  Conversely,  a  £100,000  per  mile 
line  should  earn  its  dividend  quite  as  easily  as  the  £5,000 
per  mile  one  if  its  traffic  is  commensurate  with  its  cost. 

In  studying  the  subjoined  tables  it  should  therefore 
be  kept  in  mind  that  cost  per  mile  is  a  meaningless  test 
unless  differences  in  location,  structure,  equipment  and 
traffic  are  all  taken  into  account. 

The  Board  of  Trade  returns  for  1911  enumerate  nine 
electric  railways  in  London  and  three  in  the  provinces. 
They  are  set  out  in  a  group  by  themselves,  and  the  first 
point  to  note  about  them  is  their  capitalisation.  Its 
nominal  total  is   63J  millions  sterling,  but  of  that  2J 


ELECTRIC  RAILWAYS 


89 


millions  is  duplication.  On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be 
noted  that  out  of  the  twelve  roads  only  three  were  bad 
offenders  in  this  respect.  The  Metropolitan  Railway  is 
chargeable  with  £1,425,000  of  duplication,  and  the 
District  with  £636,500.  The  only  provincial  line  with 
any  nominal  capital  is  the  Mersey  Railway.  It  has 
£516,200  unrepresented  by  cash,  but  this,  as  well  as 
the  District  £1,425,000,  seems  to  be  due  rather  to  having 
to  sell  new  stock  at  a  discount.  Neither  company  has 
ever  been  in  the  happy  position  of  being  able  to  dream 
about  duplication. 


Electric  Railways,  1911. 
Total  Capital,  Less  Nominal  Additions. 


Total 
Capital. 
(OOO'B) 

Nominal 
Portion. 
(OOO'e) 

Cash 
Capital. 
(000-8) 

Central  London 
City  and  South  London    . 
Great  iMorthern  and  City 
Waterloo  and  City       .     . 
London  Electric     . 
Metropolitan     .... 
Metropolitan  District  . 
Metropolitan  City  Extension 
Whitechapel  and  Bow 

3 

£ 

4,390-3 

3,011-8 

2,084-0 

6060 

16,419-0 

16,677-1 

13,143-2 

1,000-0 

1,575-0 

£ 

1,424-9 
636-5 

4,390-3 

3,011-8 

2,084-0 

606-0 

16,419-0 

15,252-2 

12,506-7 

1,000-0 

1,6750 

Blackpool 

Liverpool  Overhead    . 
Mersey         

58,906-4 

2,061-4 

66,845-0 

190-0 

861-4 

3,589-7 

516-2 

190-0 

861-4 

3,073-5 

4,641-1 

616-2 

4,124-9 

Total 

63,547-6 

2,577-6 

60,969-9 

A  series  of  adjustments  have  now  to  be  made  in  order 
to  ehminate  the  more  important  differences  between 
these  roads  as  regards  location,  number  of  tracks,  strength 
of  permanent  way,  density  of  traffic,  etc.  The  first  will 
be  a  reduction  of  the  mileage  to  single  track : — 


90 


BEITISH  RAILWAYS 


Elbctbic  Railways,  1911. 
Mileage  of  Single  Track. 


1 

Miles  of                Single 
Line.                  Track. 

Length  of 

Single  Track 

to  Miles  of 

Line. 

Central  London      .      .      . 
City  and  South  London    . 
Great  Northern  and  City 
Waterloo  and  City       .      . 
London  Electric     .      .      . 
Metropolitan     .... 
Metropolitan  District  .      . 
Metropolitan  City  Extensions 
Whitechapel  and  Bow      . 

J 

7 

8 

3 

2 

22 

48 

26 

2 

2 

21 

18 
7 
4 

52 
132 

65 
5 
6 

3-00 
2-25 
2-33 
2-00 
2-40 
2-70 
2-50 
2-50 
2-50 

Blackpool 

Liverpool  Overhead    . 

120 
8 
9 
4 

309 
15 
17 
10 

2-60 
1-85 
1-90 
2-50 

Total 

141 

351 

2-50 

Electbic  Railways,  1911. 
Capital  per  Mile  op  Single  Track. 


Miles  of 
Single  Track. 

Cash  Capital, 
(OOO's) 

Per  Mile. 

Central  London      . 
City  and  South  London    . 
Great  Northern  and  City 
Waterloo  and  City       .      . 
London  Electric     .      .     . 
Metropohtan     .... 
Metropolitan  District .     . 
Metropohtan  City  Extensions 
Whitechapel  and  Bow      . 

} 

21 

18 
7 
4 

52 
132 

65 
5 
5 

£ 

4,390-3 

3,011-8 

2,084-0 

606-0 

16,419-0 

15,252-2 

12,506-7 

1,000-0 

1,575-0 

209,000 
167,300 
297,700 
151,600 
315,400 
115,000 
192,400 
200,000 
315,000 

Blackpool 

Liverpool  Overhead    .     .     . 
Mersey         

309 

56,845-0 

184,000 

15 
17 
10 

190-0 

861-4 

3,073-5 

12,600 

66,700 

307,400 

42 

4,124-9 

98,200 

ELECTRIC  RAILWAYS  91 

Even  when  we  have  got  the  mileage  reduced  to  single 
track  the  cost  per  mile  varies  widely.  In  London  it 
extends  all  the  way  from  £115,000  up  to  £315,000  per 
mile,  while  in  the  provinces  the  minimum  is  £12,600  and 
the  maximum  £307,400  per  mile.  A  very  significant 
fact  is  the  extraordinary  cost  of  the  tubes — ^the  latest  form 
of  metropolitan  locomotion  and  at  present  the  most 
popular.  The  London  Electric  system  has  a  capital 
expenditure  of  £315,400  per  mile  of  track  recorded 
against  it — equal  to  £730,800  for  each  mile  of  line.  The 
MetropoUtan  is  capitalised  at  little  more  than  a  third  as 
much,  but  its  average  is  considerably  lowered  by  including 
a  large  amount  of  comparatively  cheap  line  in  its  suburban 
extensions. 

The  problem  of  the  electric  railway  in  London  is  unique. 
Both  from  the  engineering  and  the  economic  standpoints 
it  differs  widely  from  the  corresponding  problem  in  the 
provinces.  Neither  an  electric  nor  a  steam  railway  is 
ever  likely  to  be  built  hereafter  in  the  heart  of  London 
for  less  than  a  quarter  of  a  million  per  mile  of  single  track 
or  half  a  million  per  mile  of  double  track.  The  pro- 
jectors of  any  new  metropolitan  scheme  would  therefore 
have  to  satisfy  themselves  beforehand  that  a  fair  return 
could  be  earned  on  such  an  outlay.  The  average  of  the 
existing  lines  is,  it  will  be  seen,  much  smaller  than  that — 
namely  £184,000  per  mile  of  single  track  and  £368,000 
per  mile  of  double  track.  That  is  due,  however,  to  the  low 
average  of  the  Metropolitan  Railway,  as  already  explained. 

When  we  turn  from  the  striking  diversities  in  the  cost 
per  mile  of  electric  railways,  both  in  London  and  the 
provinces,  to  the  returns  they  yield  on  their  capital  cost, 
we  find  a  degree  of  uniformity  as  remarkable  as  was  the 
diversity  in  capitalisation.  No  matter  what  the  average 
cost  per  mile,  the  range  of  variation  in  the  returns  is  sur- 
prisingly small.  To  this  there  are  only  two  exceptions — 
the  electric  railway  at  Blackpool  the  gross  revenue  of 
which  in  proportion  to  its  capital  cost  is  fully  three 
times  as  large  as  that  of  the  London  lines,  and  the 
Liverpool  Overhead  which  earns  nearly  double  the 
London  percentage. 


92 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


Electric  Railways,  1911. 
Pebcentage  of  Gross  Revenue  to  Cash  Capital. 


Cash  Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Gross 

Revenue. 

(OOO's) 

Percentage  of 
Capital. 

Central  London      .      .      . 
City  and  South  London    . 
Great  Northern  and  City 
Waterloo  and  City       .      . 
London  Electric     . 

8 

4,390-3 

3,011-8 

2,084-0 

606-0 

16,419-0 

15,252-2 

12,506-7 

1,000-0 

1,575-0 

288-6 

184-9 

82-5 

31-4 

759-0 

925-2 

652-8 

80-7 

700 

6-6 
6-1 
40 
5-2 
4-6 
60 
6-2 
80 
4-4 

Metropohtan  District  .      . 
MetropoMtan  City  Extension 
Whitechapel  and  Bow      . 

Blackpool 

Liverpool  Overhead    .     .     . 
Mersey        

66,845-0 

3,0761 

5-4 

1900 

861-4 

3,073-5 

37-8 

78-9 

109-9 

19-9 
91 
3-6 

4,124-9 

226-6 

6-6 

On  the  above  table  two  obvious  observations  are  to 
be  made.  First,  the  percentage  of  gross  revenue  to  cost 
will  strike  the  reader  as  very  small.  The  London  average, 
5-4  per  cent.,  is  a  shade  more  than  a  shilling  in  the  £. 
This,  remember,  is  for  gross  and  not  for  net  receipts. 
More  surprising  still,  the  average  of  the  provincial  Imes 
is  almost  identical  with  that  of  the  Metropolitan  ones — 
namely,  6*5  per  cent,  against  5*4  per  cent.  Out  of  this 
meagre  proportion  the  whole  of  the  operating  expenses, 
administration,  etc.,  have  to  be  paid.  It  may  seem 
wonderful  how  anything  can  be  left  for  the  owners  of  the 
railways  and  their  creditors.  But  all  the  lines  emerge 
with  a  trifle  of  net  revenue.  Sometimes  it  is  only  enough 
to  pay  prior  charges,  and  it  never  runs  to  a  substantial 
dividend. 

This  may  be  the  most  convenient  point  to  draw  a  few 
comparisons — or  contrasts  perhaps — between  the  new 
style  of  railway  and  the  old. 

First  as  to  mileage.  In  England  and  Wales  there  are 
16,200  miles  of  railway,  equal  to  64,576  miles  of  single 


ELECTRIC  RAILWAYS 


93 


Electric  Railways,  1911. 
Percentage  of  Net  Revenue  to  Cash  Capital. 


Cash  Capital. 
(OOO's) 

Net  Revenue, 
(OOO's) 

Per  Cent. 

Central  London      .      .      . 
City  and  South  London    . 
Great  Northern  and  City 
Waterloo  and  City       .      . 
London  Electric     . 
Metropolitan     .... 

3 

£ 

4,390-3 

3,011-8 

2,084-0 

606-0 

16,419-0 

16,262-2 

12,606-7 

1,000-0 

1,576-0 

122-3 

98-9 

41-4 

15-9 

413-1 

431-6 

344-3 

25-8 

28-1 

2-8 

3-3 

2-0 

2-6 

2-5 

2-8 

2-75 

2-6 

1-8 

Metropolitan  District  . 
Metropolitan  City  Extension 
Whitechapel  and  Bow 

Blackpool 

Liverpool  Overhead    . 
Mersey         

66,8450 

1,521-4 

2-7 

190-0 

861-4 

3,073-5 

18-6 
24-0 
60-5 

9-8 
2-8 
1-6 

4,124-9 

93-1 

2-25 

track.  Of  these  only  141  miles,  or  351  miles  of  single 
track,  is  electric.  Thus  the  railway  of  the  future  is  as 
yet  but  in  its  infancy. 

Second.  While  the  steam  railways  of  England  and 
Wales  have  cost  on  an  average  £22,380  per  mile  of  single 
track,  those  of  Scotland  £17,600,  those  of  Ireland  £9,200, 
and  the  United  Kingdom  as  a  whole  £20,600,  the  new 
electric  lines  have  averaged  in  London  £184,200  per 
mile  of  single  track,  and  in  the  provinces  £98,200.  But 
note  that  the  greatest  part  of  their  mileage  is  under- 
ground, and  therefore  exceptionally  expensive. 

Third.  As  regards  cost  per  mile  of  single  track,  even 
the  most  costly  of  the  steam  railways  compare  favourably 
with  the  electrics.  Their  highest  averages — ^the  Lanca- 
shire and  Yorkshire's  £27,800  and  the  Midland's  £24,700 
— ^are  less  than  a  sixth  of  the  electrical  average.  The  over- 
head average  of  the  nine  trimk  lines  analysed  in  a  previous 
chapter  is  only  £18,300  per  mile  of  single  track,  which  is  less 
than  a  ninth  of  the  all-British  electrical  average  (£172,000). 
The  mineral  lines  in  England  averaged,  as  we  have  seen,^ 

1  Page  12. 


94 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


£16,200,  and  in  Wales  £20,200  per  mile  of  single  track, 
little  more  than  one-tenth  of  the  electrical  average. 

These  few  comparisons  may  give  the  reader  a  faint  idea 
of  how  lavishly  capitahsed  the  pioneer  electric  railways 
have  been.  Most  of  them  have  the  excuse  that  they  had 
to  commence  operations  in  densely  populated  areas. 
This  of  course  necessitated  expensive  building,  and  handi- 
capped the  pioneer  lines  heavily  in  their  competition  with 
the  older  system  of  traction.  They  required  proportion- 
ately large  traffics  to  make  them  a  success,  and  in  this 
respect  they  have  so  far  had  little  to  complain  of.  If 
we  compare  the  two  groups — steam  and  electric — as 
aggregates  it  will  be  found  that  the  electric  earnings 
per  mile  of  single  track  are  hardly  on  a  par  with  their 
capitalisation.  In  other  words,  they  are  not  yet  living 
up  to  their  higher  standard  of  cost  per  mile.  Their  gross 
revenues  in  1911  compare  as  follows  with  those  of  the  steam 
railways : — 

Electric  Railways,  1911. 
Gross  Revenue  Per  Mile  op  Single  Track. 


Miles  of 
Single  Track. 

Gross 
Revenue. 

Per  Mile. 

Central  London      .... 
City  and  South  London    . 
Great  Northern  and  City 
Waterloo  and  City       .      .      . 
London  Electric     .... 

Metropolitan 

Metropolitan  District 
Metropolitan  City  Extensions 
Whitechapel  and  Bow      .      . 

Blackpool 

Liverpool  Overhead    .     .     , 
Mersey         

English  Steam  Railways  .     . 

21 

18 
7 
4 

52 
132 

65 
5 
5 

288,661 

184,913 

82,559 

31,391 

759,008 

925,228 

652,825 

80,725 

69,985 

13,746 
10,273 
11,794 

7,848 
14,600 

7,000 
10,000 
16,145 
13,997 

309 

3,075,295 

9,952 

15 
17 
10 

37,841 

78,945 

109,947 

2,523 

4,643 

10,995 

42 

226,733 

6,400 

351 

3,302,028 

9,400 

41,861 

97,145,000 

2,320 

ELECTRIC  RAILWAYS  95 

While  the  capitalisation  of  the  electric  railways  has 
averaged  about  five  times  as  much  per  mile  of  single  track 
as  that  of  the  steam  railways,  their  gross  receipts  are 
only  about  four  times  as  much.  Moreover,  this  com- 
parison is  imduly  favourable  to  the  electric  railways  in 
so  far  as  they  are  for  the  most  part  Metropolitan  lines, 
enjoying  the  finest  traffic  areas  conceivable,  while  the 
steam  railways  are  of  all  kinds,  from  the  poorest  to  the 
richest.  In  order  to  get  an  equal  comparison  steam  and 
electric  lines  working  in  the  same  areas  and  under  similar 
local  conditions  should  be  matched  against  each  other. 

The  North  London  is  the  only  purely  Metropolitan  line 
still  worked  by  steam  which  is  fairly  comparable  with 
the  tubes,  while  the  London,  Tilbury  and  Southend  may 
be  taken  as  a  good  example  of  mixed  MetropoHtan  and 
suburban  traffic  worked  on  the  old  system.  It  corresponds 
pretty  well  with  the  two  underground  railways,  the 
Metropolitan  and  the  District,  which  have  also  a  mixed 
urban  and  suburban  traffic. 

In  1911  the  North  London  reported  gross  receipts  of 
£452,694  and  working  expenses  £301,421,  leaving  £151,273 
net.  Mileage — fourteen  miles  of  line  and  sixty-nine  of 
single  track.  Its  gross  receipts  were  consequently  £6,560 
per  mile,  its  working  expenses  £4,368,  and  its  net  revenue 
£2,192.  The  corresponding  averages  for  the  London 
group  of  electric  railways  were  £9,952  per  mile  of  gross 
receipts,  £5,440  of  working  expenses,  and  £4,920  of  net 
receipts.  Gross  receipts  per  mile  were  nearly  50  per  cent, 
higher  than  on  the  North  London ;  working  expenses 
only  12 J  per  cent,  more,  and  net  receipts  125  per  cent, 
greater. 

The  London,  Tilbury  and  Southend  makes  a  still  poorer 
show  against  the  new  form  of  traction.  Its  gross  receipts 
per  mile  (single  track)  in  1911  were  £3,134,  its  working 
expenses  £1,872,  and  its  net  receipts  £1,262.  Compared 
with  the  electric  group  the  gross  revenue  was  less  than 
one-third,  working  expenses  also  about  a  third,  but  net 
receipts  only  one -fourth.  If  we  eliminate  the  tubes  from 
the  electric  group  and  adopt  the  Metropolitan  Railway 
as  a  standard  of  comparison,  it  being,  like  the  London, 


96 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


Tilbury  and  Southend,  partly  suburban,  more  favourable 
results  for  the  older  road  are  obtainable.  In  1911  the 
Metropohtan  Railway's  gross  receipts  were  £7,000  per 
mile  (single  track),  working  expenses  £3,780,  and  net 
receipts  £3,270.  Gross  receipts  were  123  per  cent,  above 
the  Tilbury  average,  working  expenses  100  per  cent., 
and  net  receipts  159  per  cent. 

After  making  full  allowance  for  the  superiority  of  the 
traffic  areas  in  which  the  electric  railways  operate,  there 
will  still  be  a  large  surplus  at  their  credit.  Evidently 
they  are  much  better  creators  and  developers  of  traffic 
than  the  steam  railways. 

Having  compared  the  gross  earnings  of  the  two  systems, 
we  have  next  to  analyse  their  working  expenses. 

Electric  Railways,  1911. 
Working  Expenses  per  Mils  of  Sinqlb  Track. 


Total  Miles 
(Single  Track). 

Total  Expenses. 
(OOO's) 

Per  Mile. 

Central  London 
City  and  South  London    . 
Great  Northern  and  City 
Waterloo  and  City       .      . 
London  Electric     . 
Metropolitan     .... 

3 

21 
18 

7 
4 

52 
132 

65 
5 
5 

£ 

166-3 

860 

411 

15-6 

345-8 

498-6 

308-5 

54-8 

41-9 

7,900 
4,790 
5,870 
3,870 
6,650 
3,780 
4,750 
1,100 
840 

Metropolitan  District  . 
Metropolitan  City  Extension 
Whitechapel  and  Bow 

Blackpool 

Liverpool  Overhead    .     .     . 
Mersey 

309 

1,558-5 

5,440 

15 
17 
10 

19-2 
54-9 
69-4 

1,280 
3,230 
6,940 

42 

133-5 

3,180 

Total 

351 

1,692-0 

4,820 

English  Steam  Railways  . 

41,861 

60,602-4 

1,447 

The  electric  railways  of  England  as  a  whole  cost  on 
an  average  £4,820  per  mile  of  single  track  to  work  them, 
while  the  steam  railways  cost  only  £1,447  per  mile.     The 


ELECTRIC  RAILWAYS 


97 


London  group  by  itself  shows  an  average  of  £5,440 
per  mile,  and  the  provincial  group  £3,180.  Thus  the 
cheapest  electric  lines  have  more  than  double  the  rate 
of  working  expenses  per  mile  that  steam  railways  show. 
The  London  group,  which  is  the  most  expensive,  is  not 
far  from  four  times  as  high  as  the  steam  railway  average. 
Nevertheless  the  ratio  of  net  to  gross  earnings  is,  as  will 
be  seen  below,  much  higher  on  the  electric  than  on  the 
steam  lines. 

Electric  Railways,  1911. 
Net  Revenue  per  Mile  of  Single  Track. 


MUes. 

Net  Revenue. 
(OOO's) 

Per  Mile. 

Central  London      .... 
City  and  South  London    .      . 
Great  Northern  and  City 
Waterloo  and  aty       .     .     . 
London  Electric     .... 

Metropolitan 

Metropolitan  District  . 
Metropolitan  City  Extensions 
Whitechapel  and  Bow      .     . 

Blackpool 

Liverpool  Overhead    .     .     . 
Mersey         

English  Steam  Railways  . 

21 

18 
7 
4 

52 
132 

65 
6 
5 

£ 

122-3 

98-9 

41-4 

15-9 

413-1 

431-6 

344-3 

26-8 

28-0 

£ 
5,824 
5,495 
5,910 
3,976 
7,940 
3,270 
5,300 
5,160 
5,620 

309             1,521-3 

4,920 

15 
17 
10 

18-6 
24-0 
60-5 

1,240 
1,410 
5,050 

42 

93-1 

2,210 

351             1,614-4 

4,600 

41,861 

36,543-0 

873 

The  disparities  in  the  above  table  are  remarkable. 
The  steam  railway  average  of  £873  per  mile  of  net  earnings 
is  less  than  a  fifth  of  the  electric  average,  and  not  much 
more  than  a  sixth  of  what  the  London  group  shows.  It 
is  a  puzzle  how  such  enormous  differences  can  arise  in  the 
earning  power  of  railways,  even  when  they  are  similarly 
situated  and  appear  to  have  almost  equal  advantages. 
In  London  they  are  due  chiefly  to  the  fluctuating  volumes 


98  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

of  passenger  traffic.  This,  again,  wiU  furnish  us  with 
some  striking  contrasts  between  steam  and  electric 
traction.  The  first  of  the  following  tables  illustrates  the 
passenger  traffic  of  the  electric,  and  the  second  that  of 
certain  steam  railways  in  1911, 

Electbic  Railways,  1911. 
Passenger  Traffic  per  Mile  of  Single  Track. 


Total 
Total  Miles.         Passengers. 
(OOO's) 

Per  Mile. 
(OOO's) 

Central  London      .... 
City  and  South  London    . 
Great  Northern  and  City 
Waterloo  and  City       .      .      . 
London  Electric     .... 

Metropolitan 

Metropolitan  District .     .     . 
Metropolitan  City  Extensions 
Whitechapel  and  Bow      .     . 

Blackpool 

Liverpool  Overhead    .     .     . 
Mersey        

21 

IS 
7 
4 

52 
132 

65 
5 
5 

37,630-2 

24,4050 

9,763-6 

3,694-6 

99,303-2 

80,644-2 

70,067-4 

659-7 

21,278-8 

1,792-0 
1,3560 
1,3930 

9230 
1,9100 

611-0 
1,0780 

1120 
4,2660 

309 

347,336-7 

1,124-0 

16 
17 
10 

3,0050 
11,1321 
11,879-7 

200-0 

656-0 

1,1880 

42 

26,016-8 

6200 

351 

373,353-6 

1,064-0 

Steam  Railways,  1911. 
Passenger  Traffic  per  Mile  of  Single  Track. 


Miles. 

Total 
Passengers. 

Averajeper 

England  and  Wales     .      .      . 

North  London 

London,  Tilbury  and  Southend 

41,861 

69 

222 

814,850,800 
23,759,700 
34,400,000 

19,466 
344,343 
155,000 

Compare  the  347  million  journeys  made  on  electric 
railways  in  London  alone  with  the  814  million  journeys 
made  on  steam  railways  in  England  and  Wales,  and  try 
to  reaHse  what  it  means  to  have  as  dense  a  movement  of 
population  in  one  small  corner  of  the  country  as  in  all 


ELECTRIC  RAILWAYS  99 

the  rest  put  together.  If  we  add  to  the  electric  railway 
journeys  in  London  those  of  the  electric  tramways,  the 
total  will  far  exceed  that  of  all  the  steam  railways  in 
England.  The  averages  per  mile  of  single  track  furnish 
even  more  striking  proofs  of  the  density  of  London  traffic. 
While  the  steam  railways  of  England  and  Wales  carried 
in  1911  less  than  twenty  thousand  passengers  for  every 
mile  of  single  track  in  operation,  one  electric  line,  the 
Whitechapel  and  Bow,  carried  four  and  a  quarter  millions. 
The  respective  numbers  were  19,463  and  4,256,000. 

The  Whitechapel  and  Bow  is,  of  course,  a  very  short 
section  of  the  underground  system  operating  in  the  most 
densely  populated  part  of  London.  No  sweeping  generali- 
sation should  therefore  be  drawn  from  such  an  exceptional 
case.  But  the  London  electric  system,  with  its  fifty-two 
miles  of  single  track,  is  large  enough  to  be  accepted  as  a 
fair  test  of  electric  traffic.  Its  average  in  1911  was 
1,910,000  passengers  per  mile  of  single  track  as  compared 
with  the  steam  railway  average  of  19,463  per  mile  for  all 
England.  Nor  was  the  Central  London  far  behind  with 
its  1,792,000  per  mile.  In  the  first  case  the  steam  railway 
average  is  multiphed  nearly  one  hundred  times,  and  in 
the  second  it  is  about  ninetyfold  greater. 

The  North  London  and  London,  Tilbury  and  Southend, 
our  best  examples  of  steam  traction  in  the  metropolitan 
area,  are  hardly  within  sight  of  the  underground  lines 
as  regards  volume  of  passenger  traffic.  The  Tilbury's 
344,343  per  mile  of  single  track  is  barely  a  third  of  the 
underground  average  (1,124,000  per  mile).  The  North 
London  passenger  business  has  shrunk  so  sadly  of  late 
that  its  average  is  now  down  to  155,000  per  mile.  But 
electric  traction  may  do  as  much  for  it  as  it  has  done  for 
the  tubes. 

The  final  test  to  be  applied  to  the  two  rival  systems 
will  be  a  comparative  analysis  of  their  passenger  traffic, 
including  both  volume  and  revenue.  The  first  table 
gives  for  the  electric  group  their  total  number  of 
passengers,  total  revenue  and  average  receipts  per  head. 
The  second  gives  corresponding  figures  for  the  steam 
railways  of  England  and  Wales  as  a  whole,  and  for  two 


100  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

typical  metropolitan  lines,  the  North  London  and  the 
Tilbury. 

Electric  Railways,  1911. 
Passbngeb   Rbvbnue    per    Head. 


Total 

Passengers. 

(000*8) 

Passenger 

Receipts. 

(000*8) 

Per  Head. 

Central  London      .... 
City  and  South  London    .      . 
Great  Northern  and  City 
Waterloo  and  City       .      .      . 
London  Electric     .... 

Metropolitan 

Metropolitan  District  .      .      . 
Metropolitan  City  Extensions 
Whitechapel  and  Bow      .     . 

Blackpool 

Liverpool  Overhead    .      .      . 
Mersey        

37,630-2 

24,406-0 

9,763-6 

3,694-6 

99,303-2 

80,644-2 

70,067-4 

569-7 

21,278-8 

262-9 

172-9 

78-6 

30-5 

711-8 

702-9 

609-5 

77-1 

67-6 

d. 
1-7 
1-7 
1-9 
20 
1-7 
20 
2-1 
330 
0-76 

347,336-7 

2,713-7 

1-9 

3,005-0 
11,1321 
11,879-7 

37-8 

76-3 

101-6 

30 
1-7 
2-0 

26,016-8 

216-7 

20 

373,353-6 

2,929-4 

1-9 

Steam  Railways,  1911. 
Passenger  Revenue  per  Head. 

Total  Passengers. 

Passenger 
Receipto. 

Per  Head. 

England  and  Wales     .     .     . 

North  London 

London,  Tilbury  and  Southend 

814,850,800 
23,769,700 
34,400,000 

£ 
35,264,800 
190,450 
481,000 

d. 

10-4 

1-9 

3-3 

Here  we  have  a  return  to  comparative  uniformity  in 
the  results  of  the  two  systems.  Widely  as  they  dififer  in 
mileage,  in  cost  of  construction,  in  methods  of  operation 
and  in  the  character  of  their  traffic,  the  two  systems  arrive 
at  wonderfully  similar  financial  results.  The  average 
amount  earned  per  passenger  is  identical  in  the  London 
electric  group  and  the  provincial  group  of  lines — ^namely, 
l*9d.      On  one  of  the  typical  steam  railways,  the  North 


«•    »    • 


ELECTRIC  RAILWA-Y^.. :  1*  •-.•  :••. -t^i  A 

London,  it  is  also  l'9d.  On  the  London,  Tilbury  and 
Southend  it  is  larger — SSd.  per  passenger — owing  no 
doubt  to  the  longer  journeys  made  by  seaside  visitors. 

Li  the  London  group  of  electric  lines  two  striking 
anomalies  will  excite  curiosity.  One  is  the  very  low 
average  fare  earned  on  the  Whitechapel  and  Bow  section — 
namely,  0*75  of  a  penny,  or  in  plainer  English  three- 
farthings  !  The  other  is  the  abnormally  high  average 
shown  on  the  City  Extension  lines — SSd.  per  head.  This 
is  probably  a  mere  matter  of  book-keeping,  but  in  any 
case  the  amount  of  traffic  is  too  small  to  have  any  material 
effect  on  the  other  averages. 

This  examination  of  the  electric  railway  accounts 
for  1911  leaves  us  strongly  impressed  with  (1)  the  huge 
capitalisation  they  have  to  carry;  (2)  their  great  and 
growing  traffics ;  (3)  their  heavy  operating  expenses  per 
mile ;  (4)  their  small  ratio  of  expenses  to  receipts,  and 
finally,  the  meagre  surplus  left  for  the  shareholders. 


CHAPTER  IX 

London's  overwhelming  traffic 

Three  successive  generations  of  railway  engineers 
have  tried  different  solutions  of  the  baffling  problem  of 
inter-urban  traffic.  The  first  generation  began  with  what 
seemed  to  be  the  most  natural  if  not  the  only  possible 
solution — overhead  lines.  There  are  many  examples  of 
these  in  London,  all  dating  from  about  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  North  of  the  Thames  are  the  North 
London  and  the  urban  sections  of  the  Tilbury  line. 
South  of  the  river  are  the  urban  ends  of  the  London, 
Chatham  and  Dover,  the  Brighton  line,  the  South- 
Eastern,  and  the  London  and  South-Eastern.  All  these 
reach  their  termini  on  overhead  tracks,  while  three  of 
them  cross  the  Thames  by  overhead  bridges. 

The  overhead  metropolitan  system  has  obvious  advan- 
tages and  disadvantages.  It  is  well  lighted  and  well 
ventilated,  consequently  it  is  healthy  for  passengers. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  noisy  and  causes  a  large  amount 
of  discomfort  to  residents  along  the  route.  This  nuisance 
has  reached  its  maximum  in  the  elevated  railways  of 
New  York,  which  have  rendered  the  streets  they  traverse 
almost  uninhabitable.  From  a  traffic  point  of  view  the 
overhead  railway  is  non-elastic.  It  cannot  be  enlarged 
except  at  great  expense,  consequently  it  cannot  keep 
pace  with  the  phenomenal  growth  of  metropolitan  traffic. 
A  minor  drawback  from  which  it  suffers  is  difficulty  of 
access.  There  is  too  much  climbing  up  long  stairs  to 
suit  the  taste  of  modern  sybarites. 

Partly  for  that  reason,  when  the  street  tramways  came 
in  the  overhead  railways  were  deserted  in  their  favour. 
But  in  any  case  their  reign  would  have  been  over  then, 

102 


LONDON'S   OVERWHELMING  TRAFFIC     103 

as  they  could  not  have  coped  with  any  large  increase  of 
traffic.  The  overhead  railways  which  had  hampered 
themselves  still  further  with  overhead  bridges  suffered 
all  the  more  from  this  additional  restriction.  As  may  be 
seen  at  the  Cannon  Street  and  Charing  Cross  stations,  they 
had  to  force  their  traffic  inward  and  outward  through  the 
narrow  neck  of  a  bottle.  Such  an  obstruction  has  this 
proved  in  these  two  cases  that  the  advisability  of  abolish- 
ing the  bridges  and  building  new  terminals  on  the  Surrey 
side  of  the  river  has  been  more  than  once  mooted. 

The  second  solution  of  the  urban  traffic  problem  was 
the  street  railway.  It  has  passed  through  a  number  of 
stages,  beginning  with  the  horse  car  and  culminating  in  the 
capacious  but  cumbrous  electric  car  of  our  own  day. 
Like  the  overhead  line,  the  street  tramway  is  healthy  and 
comfortable.  The  cars  run  smoothly  and  since  their 
electrification  they  make  fair  speed.  Per  contra  they  are 
liable  to  be  frequently  held  up  by  blocks  in  the  street 
traffic.  The  breakdown  of  a  single  car  throws  the  whole 
service  on  that  particular  route  and  all  its  connections 
out  of  gear.  But  the  chief  defect  of  the  street  railway  is  the 
number  of  breaks  and  gaps  there  are  in  the  system.  As 
an  electrical  engineer  would  say,  it  has  too  many  loose 
ends. 

This  defect  is  to  be  seen  at  its  worst  in  London,  but 
even  there  it  is  not  incurable.  It  need  never  have 
become  so  bad  as  it  is  but  for  the  jealousies  and  disputes 
of  a  multitude  of  municipal  authorities.  If  half  a  century 
ago  London  street  traffic  had  been  placed  imder  some 
kind  of  central  and  uniform  control,  the  tramways  might 
not  have  broken  off  short  as  they  now  do  at  various 
points  half  a  mile  or  more  from  the  great  centres  of 
traffic.  Such  an  obvious  evil  as  this  is  has  sooner  or 
later  got  to  be  remedied.  The  growth  of  the  traffic  will 
compel  the  City  authorities  to  abandon  their  non-possumus 
attitude  and  consent  to  some  arrangement  for  linking 
up  the  Northern  and  the  Southern  networks  of  street 
railways. 

The  third  solution  of  our  street  traffic  problem  is  of 
a    composite    kind.     Almost    simultaneously    two    new 


104  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

methods  of  transport  came  in— the  underground  electric 
and  the  motor  bus.  Up  to  a  certain  point  they  were 
deadly  competitors,  but  now  they  are  formidable  allies. 
Since  the  original  underground  lines  of  half  a  century  ago 
were  electrified  and  brought  up  to  date  they  may  be 
classed  along  with  the  tubes  among  the  new  forms  of 
metropolitan  transport. 

The  latest  development  is  a  movement  among  the 
newest  and  most  up-to-date  railways  toward  co-operation. 
A  powerful  combination  of  tubes  and  motor  buses  has 
already  been  formed,  and  though  it  has  still  to  give  proof 
of  its  financial  wisdom  and  stability,  it  must  be  treated  as 
an  accomplished  fact  in  the  urban  traffic  situation.  All 
the  more  so  as  it  soon  foimd  imitators  and  produced  a 
crop  of  rival  schemes.  The  Metropolitan  Railway  Board, 
fired  by  the  success  of  the  Speyer  group  of  financiers  in 
linking  up  three  tubes,  a  suburban  tramway  system  and 
the  principal  omnibus  service  with  the  District  Railway, 
also  took  the  field  as  a  combineer. 

Its  first  deal  was  the  purchase  of  the  Great  Northern 
and  City — a>  rather  startling  development,  especially  to 
the  more  conservative  section  of  its  shareholders.  It  will 
not  be  carried  through  without  considerable  opposition, 
and  at  fiirst  sight  it  does  look  a  rather  far-fetched  scheme. 
But  a  careful  survey  of  the  various  surroundings  should 
satisfy  any  one  that  they  offer  ample  scope  for  future 
extensions  and  new  connections.  It  would  be  a  compara- 
tively small  matter  to  continue  the  Great  Northern  and 
City  from  its  present  terminus  at  Moorgate  Street  on  to 
the  Bank.  There  it  could  be  linked  up  with  the  Waterloo 
and  City,  and  thereby  put  in  communication  with  the 
network  of  suburban  electric  lines  about  to  be  built 
by  the  London  and  South- Western  Company. 

By  means  of  short  links  the  City  and  South  London  could 
be  joined  up  to  Waterloo,  and  the  spur  line  of  the  Picca- 
dilly and  Brompton  tube  which  now  breaks  off  abruptly 
in  the  Strand  could  be  carried  to  its  natural  terminus  on 
the  south  side  of  the  river.  When  electrification  is  taken 
up  in  earnest  all  the  gaps  in  the  existing  network  of  tubes 
and  street  lines  will  be  filled  up.    A  good  beginning  haa 


LONDON'S  OVERWHELMING  TRAFFIC    105 

been  made  by  the  extension  of  the  Central  London  to 
Liverpool  Street,  where  it  is  now  in  a  position  to  inter- 
change trafl&c  with  the  Great  Eastern  and  North  London, 
and  through  the  North  London  with  the  whole  London 
and  North- Western  system.  It  is  impossible  as  yet  to 
realise  the  possible  results  of  the  great  changes  which 
are  impending  in  this  quarter.  The  London  and  North- 
western electric  line  from  Watford  to  Euston  and  Broad 
Street,  now  being  rapidly  completed,  will  revolutionise 
the  suburban  service  of  that  whole  district.  It  will  also 
give  a  new  lease  of  hfe  to  the  North  London. 

The  Metropolitan  Railway  has  its  own  possibilities, 
and  all  that  is  needed  to  realise  them  is  fresh  courage  and 
capital.  Its  natural  allies  and  feeders  are  the  tramway 
systems  of  the  north-east  and  south-west  of  London. 
Though  the  former  are  chiefly  owned  by  the  London 
County  Council,  there  is  an  independent  network  con- 
trolled by  the  Metropolitan  Tramways  Company.  At 
the  western  end  of  the  MetropoHtan  Railway  is  the  London 
United  Tramway  system.  It  is  already  in  the  Speyer 
combine,  but  is  not  in  such  a  flourishing  condition  that 
any  scheme  for  bringing  grist  to  its  miU  is  likely  to  be 
discouraged. 

These  two  tramway  systems  dovetail  naturally  into 
the  Metropolitan  Railway  and  the  Great  Northern  and 
City,  and  it  would  be  easy  to  issue  through  tickets  over 
the  whole  of  the  four  systems.  This  would  certainly 
be  a  convenience  for  the  travelling  public.  It  would  cost 
the  various  companies  little  to  carry  out,  and  by  degrees 
it  might  produce  a  considerable  increase  of  exchange 
traffic.  By  bringing  them  closer  together  in  their  working 
relations  it  might  also  draw  them  together  financially. 

The  logical  sequel  to  these  local  combinations  would  be 
a  fusion  of  the  two  central  companies — ^the  Metropolitan 
and  Metropolitan  District  Railways.  All  along  there  have 
been  shrewd  suspicions  that  this  was  the  ultimate  goal  of 
the  purchasing  and  joint  working  campaign.  What  the 
Americans  once  adored  as  the  "  community  of  interest  " 
would  be  well  justified  in  this  case.  The  wonder  is  that 
it  was  not  effected  long  ago.     When  it  might  have  been 


106  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

done  with  the  greatest  advantage  and  at  the  least  pos- 
sible cost  the  trend  of  public  opinion  was  unfortunately 
the  other  way.  Now  that  it  has  wheeled  round  again  in 
favour  of  fusion  and  co-operation,  no  good  subject  for 
such  an  experiment  is  hkely  to  be  long  neglected  and  there 
could  hardly  be  a  better  one  than  the  two  sections  of  the 
Liner  Circle. 

But  to  turn  from  the  railway  view  of  London  to  a 
broader,  humanitarian  one  is  the  prospect  of  the  nation 
being  robbed  of  its  best  blood  and  brain  in  order  to  build 
up  a  modem  Babylon  so  very  attractive  ?  An  ever- 
growing London  or  a  dwindling  London,  which  would  be 
the  lesser  evil?  One  thing  is  certain,  that  the  rate  of 
increase  in  the  passenger  movement  which  was  initiated 
by  mechanical  traction  cannot  be  long  maintained  without 
rendering  London  intolerably  large  and  unwieldy.  It 
would,  in  fact,  soon  become  an  uninhabitable  expanse 
of  noisy  and  dangerous  streets.  In  little  more  than  forty 
years  the  number  of  passengers  carried  annually  in  this 
densely  covered  area  has  multiplied  nearly  twenty-fold. 
In  1867  it  was  under  82  miUions,  and  in  1910  it  had  in- 
creased to  1566  millions.  In  these  forty  years  the  popula- 
tion has  barely  doubled  itself.  In  1867  it  was  3,606,000 
and  in  1910  it  was  7,183,000.  But  concurrently  the 
number  of  journeys  per  head  per  annum  multiplied  about 
ten-fold.  The  respective  averages  per  head  per  annum 
were  22-7  in  1867  and  218*5  in  1910. 

A  twenty  year  comparison  will  be  even  more  striking  in 
the  rate  of  increase  exhibited.  In  1891,  which  may  be 
roughly  spoken  of  as  the  beginning  of  the  electrical  tube 
and  tramway  age,  the  average  number  of  journeys  per 
head  per  annum  was  95*4 — only  four  times  greater  than 
it  had  been  in  1867.  Then  the  great  expansion  began. 
During  the  five  years  1891-96,  when  the  first  tube— the 
City  and  London — came  into  operation  and  the  electric 
tramway  appeared  on  the  horizon,  the  average  number 
of  journeys  jumped  up  from  954  to  111*3  per  head. 

What  may  be  called  the  twentieth-century  system  of 
passenger  transportation  went  right  ahead  from  1901, 
In  that  year  the  average  was  128*7  journeys  per  head  of 


LONDON'S   OVERWHELMING  TRAFFIC     107 

the  population — almost  six  times  as  great  as  that  of  1867. 
As  the  new  tubes  and  electric  tramways  came  into  opera- 
tion the  annual  average  rapidly  advanced.  It  was  50  per 
cent,  greater  in  1907  than  it  had  been  in  1901,  and  in 
1910  it  was  up  another  20  per  cent.  These  four  years, 
1907  to  1910,  made  a  series  of  remarkable  records.  In 
1907  the  average  number  of  journeys  increased  by  19*4 
per  head  of  the  population;  in  1908  by  12*4;  in  1909  by 
2*8,  and  in  1911  by  14*  1.  On  the  whole  four  years  the  in- 
crease was  39*  1  journeys  per  head,  or  at  the  rate  of  10  per 
head  per  annum. 

Movements  Uke  these  indicate  more  than  a  mere  develop- 
ment of  transportation  facilities.  They  betoken  radical 
changes  in  the  habits  of  the  people  which  may  lead  to 
moral  and  economic  changes  of  vital  importance  to  the 
nation.  People  who  make  on  an  average  218  railway  or 
tramway  journeys  per  head  per  annum — about  four  per 
week — must  differ  in  many  ways  from  their  primitive 
ancestors  who  seldom  left  home  and  whose  little  world 
did  not  extend  beyond  a  radius  of  a  few  miles.  Whether 
the  much  journeying  and  the  hurrying  to  and  fro  of  modern 
urban  life  be  due  to  sheer  restlessness  or  to  economic 
necessity  it  obviously  entails  great  wear  and  tear  of  the 
physical  system.  Mmor  evils  are  immense  waste  of  time 
and  vast  expenditure  of  money  which  might  be  better 
employed. 

If  we  estimate  that  the  1,566  million  passengers  carried 
by  rail,  tram  and  motor  bus  in  the  year  1910  paid  an 
average  fare  of  2d.,  even  that  small  sum  would  make  a 
total  of  thirteen  millions  sterling.  The  average  cost  per 
annum  to  each  of  the  seven  million  inhabitants  of  London 
for  218  journeys  would  be  £1  I85.  4:d.  This  includes 
children  and  old  people,  who  travel  very  little.  If  the 
calculation  were  limited  to  adults  the  average  would  be 
twice  as  much.  For  adults  alone  £4  per  head  per  annum 
is  probably  an  under  rather  than  an  over-estimate. 
Moreover,  the  rapid  growth  of  this  passenger  movement 
has  its  alarming  aspects.  If  in  little  more  than  the  life- 
time of  a  generation  the  average  number  of  journeys  per 
head  per  annum  has  multiplied  tenfold,  what  an  enormous 


108  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

volume  of  traffic  will  the  coming  generation  have  to 
provide  for.  in- 

The  figures  of  recent  years  are  simply  appallmg  com- 
pared with  those  of  forty  years  ago.  Let  us  see  how  they 
look  at  intervals  of  five  years,  begmning  with  1867— 

AVBBAGB  NlJMBEB  OF  JOIJBNEYS   PER   HeAD    OF   THE 

Population  of  London,  1867-1910. 


1867 

1871 

1876 

1881 

1886 

1891 

1896 

1901 

1906 

1910 

22-7 

29-7 

38*6 

56-6 

74*9 

96-4 

111-3 

128-7 

163'6 

218-6 

Already  our  principal  streets  and  thoroughfares  are 
crowded  to  suffocation  with  all  sorts  of  traffic.  There  is 
no  classification,  no  organisation,  no  method,  and,  with 
the  exception  of  the  fixed  point  policeman,  no  control. 
The  daily  life  of  the  Londoner  is  a  continual  struggle 
with  street  crowds,  railway  crowds,  theatre  crowds,  and 
football  crowds.  He  seldom  if  ever  has  room  to  move 
about  in  comfort  and  safety.  He  never  has  peace  to 
enjoy  anything  or  leisure  to  think  out  any  of  the  thousand 
and  one  problems  which  beset  him.  He  spends  a  good 
half  of  his  time  in  being  whirled  around  on  business  or 
on  pleasure.  Day  after  day  he  is  shuttle-cocked  between 
his  home  and  his  office  without  ever  finding  time  to  settle 
down  properly  in  either  of  them.  Can  he  possibly  do  his 
work  as  well  as  it  used  to  be  done  in  quieter  and  steadier 
days? 

Merely  to  grasp  the  figures  which  indicate  the  magni- 
tude of  London  traffic  requires  a  strong  mental  effort. 
How  much  more  trying  must  it  be  to  organise  and  control 
it.  That  is  fast  becoming  an  almost  impossible  task. 
Still  more  impossible  is  it  to  keep  pace  with  its  tremendous 
growth.  The  day  has  long  passed  for  replanning  metro- 
poHtan  roads  and  railways.  They  are  now  too  confused 
and  interlaced  ever  to  be  straightened  out  again.  The 
worst  places  may  be  rearranged,  but  the  maze  of 
underground,  surface  and  overhead  railways  will  in  all 
probability  have  to  remain  very  much  as  it  is. 

Not  only  have  most  of  them  been  laid  out  on  wrong 
lines,  but  the  few  really  good  schemes  which  have  been 
put  forward  were  either  mutilated  in   Parliament    or 


LONDON'S  OVERWHELMING  TRAFFIC    109 

absolutely  rejected.  This  has  been  the  special  misfortune 
of  projects  for  linking  up  the  railway  termini  with  the 
docks  and  wharves  on  the  river.  The  present  generation 
has  seen  two  of  these  defeated  by  combinations  of  opposing 
interests  and  local  jealousies.  The  latest  and  best  re- 
membered was  the  Greater  London  Railway  of  1911,  which 
proposed  to  envelop  North  London  in  a  huge  semi-circle 
extending  from  Felton  in  the  west  to  Tilbury  in  the  east. 
Its  wide  sweep  was  to  embrace  Isleworth,  Wembley, 
Kingsbury,  Hendon,  Finchley,  Friem  Barnet,  Wood 
Green,  Southgate,  Tottenham,  Walthamstow,  Ilford, 
Romford,  Dagenham,  Hornchurch,  Upminster  and  the 
Ockendens  North  and  South. 

This  grandiose  scheme  encountered  a  torrent  of  op- 
position from  District  Councils,  Borough  Councils  and 
other  local  authorities  which  proved  too  much  for  it. 
But  the  check  it  has  suffered  may  be  only  temporary. 
Its  chief  interest  for  us  lies  in  the  illustration  it  affords 
of  the  difficulty  of  getting  any  large  scheme  of  metro- 
politan transportation  considered  on  its  merits  and  judged 
from  its  own  proper  standpoint.  Even  from  that  stand- 
point the  Greater  London  Railway  was  a  rather  dubious 
scheme,  but  however  good  it  had  been  in  itself  it  had 
obviously  no  chance  against  the  phalanx  of  mimicipal 
objectors  who  rushed  down  on  it. 

A  much  more  feasible  Outer  London  Railway  was  pro- 
posed nearly  thirty  years  ago  and  also  rejected.  Or  it 
might  be  more  accurately  described  as  having  fallen 
still-bom.  Fully  half  a  million  sterHng  was  lost  over  it, 
so  that  instead  of  helping  to  solve  London's  traffic  problem 
it  postponed  the  solution  for  at  least  a  generation.  Never- 
theless it  is  almost  as  certain  as  anj^hing  can  be  in  the 
life  of  a  great  city  which  prefers  to  live  from  hand  to 
mouth,  that  the  railway  in  question  will  sooner  or  later 
have  to  be  built.  It  was  known  as  the  Regent's  Canal, 
City  and  Docks  Railway — a  name  now  probably  forgotten 
by  nearly  all  who  have  not  painful  cause  to  remember  it. 

This  railway  was  much  less  ambitious  than  the  Greater 
London  of  1911.  It  took  a  much  smaller  sweep  to  the 
north  of  the  Thames,  and  was  consequently  nearer  the 


no  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

centre  of  metropolitan  traffic.  It  had  the  advantage  of 
an  open  route  well  defined  and  a  clear  right  of  way  secured 
for  more  than  three-fourths  of  its  entire  length.  Starting 
from  Paddington  it  would  have  followed  the  course  of 
the  Regent's  Canal  to  Victoria  Park.  Then,  instead  of 
going  down  to  the  Limehouse  Basin,  the  river  terminus 
of  the  Regent's  Canal,  it  would  have  diverged  to  the 
north-east  along  the  Hertford  Union  Canal.  This  line 
it  would  have  followed  as  far  as  Old  Ford,  and  then  have 
struck  away  to  the  south-east.  Running  through  Strat- 
ford and  Canning  Town  it  would  have  ended  at  the  Victoria 
and  Albert  Docks. 

That  this  still-born  railway  would  have  been  an  im- 
mense boon  to  North  London  as  well  as  to  the  river  trade 
can  no  longer  be  disputed.  It  would  have  brought  the 
docks  and  all  the  northern  railway  termini — King's 
Cross,  Euston,  Marylebone  and  Paddington — ^into  direct 
connection  with  each  other.  These  termini  were  all  to 
be  joined  up  to  it,  and  they  need  never  afterwards  have 
put  a  ton  of  import  or  export  freight  on  the  public  streets. 
It  would  also  have  reheved  the  blockade  of  their  City 
lines  with  goods  and  mineral  traffic. 

If  the  railway  shareholders  of  1883  had  had  the  faintest 
idea  of  where  their  true  interests  lay  on  that  occasion  they 
would  have  insisted  on  the  Regent's  Canal,  City  and 
Docks  Railway  being  heartily  supported  by  their  directors. 
But  they  were  as  usual  blind  and  apathetic.  They  did 
not  dare  "  to  speak  to  the  man  at  the  wheel,"  and  he  as 
usual  did  as  he  Hked.  What  he  did  was  the  worst  possible 
thing  for  his  shareholders  as  well  as  for  the  public.  He 
would  not  part  with  an  ounce  of  his  dock  traffic  so  long  as 
he  could  keep  it  on  his  own  line,  however  circuitous  and 
inconvenient  that  line  might  be.  Even  when  he  had 
to  part  with  it  before  reaching  the  docks,  he  would  give 
it  to  any  one  rather  than  to  a  new  railway  which  fore- 
shadowed possible  competition  somewhere  or  other. 

In  short  the  directors  and  managers  of  the  northern 
main  lines  played  dog  in  the  manger  to  the  new  project, 
which  offered  them  the  best  and  cheapest  connection 
they  could  possibly  get  with  the  docks  and  the  river 


LONDON'S  OVERWHELMING  TRAFFIC    111 

Thames  generally.  If  they  had  approached  it  in  an 
impartial  business  spirit  they  would  have  had  no  difl&culty 
in  making  terms.  It  was  quite  well  known  that  carting 
goods  across  London,  say  from  Paddington  to  the  docks, 
cost  on  an  average  45.  per  ton.  Sending  it  by  circuitous 
railway  routes,  most  of  which  involved  a  certain  amount 
of  cartage,  would  not  be  much  if  any  cheaper.  Taking 
into  account  the  imconscionable  delays  and  waste  of  time 
which  the  round-about  routes  involved,  it  might  even  be 
dearer. 

That  the  proposed  railway  could  do  their  work  better, 
quicker  and  cheaper  than  any  existing  service  these 
conservative  managers  could  not  have  denied.  Rates 
were  offered  them  which  would  have  meant  savings  of 
thousands  a  year.  They  might  have  contracted  before- 
hand for  all  their  import  and  export  freight  at  half  the 
cost  of  cartage  if  they  had  been  willing  to  guarantee  a 
reasonable  amount  of  tonnage  per  annum.  One  or  two 
of  them  were  willing  to  do  this,  but  the  others  were  scorn- 
ful. The  Great  Western  was  the  most  discouraging.  It 
suggested  sixpence  per  ton  as  a  maximum  through  rate, 
which  would  have  been  less  than  a  halfpenny  per  ton  per 
mile.  The  Great  Northern  was  the  most  liberal  of  the 
main  lines,  in  fact,  the  only  one  that  showed  any  breadth 
of  mind  at  all. 

Notwithstanding  all  these  dampers  and  discourage- 
ments, the  promoters  of  the  Regent's  Canal,  City  and 
Docks  Railway  made  a  gallant  attempt  to  raise  the 
necessary  capital.  Li  February  1883  they  issued  a 
prospectus  for  £1,275,000,  out  of  which  it  was  proposed 
to  pay  £1,170,485  for  the  existing  stock  of  the  Canal 
Company.  The  stock-holders  were  given  the  option  of 
taking  new  stock  for  old  at  the  rate  of  £130  new  for 
£100  old,  and  most  of  them  to  their  subsequent  sorrow 
made  the  exchange.  The  new  company  guaranteed  them 
4  per  cent,  until  the  31st  March,  1888,  and  4 J  per  cent, 
in  perpetuity  thereafter.  But  the  guarantee  broke  down 
before  it  was  four  years  old.  In  1887  only  3  per  cent,  was 
forthcoming,  and  in  the  two  following  years  there  was  a 
further  drop  to  2J  per  cent. 


112  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

The  old  canal  shareholders  found  themselves  severely 
punished  for  attempting  to  render  a  valuable  service  to 
the  public.  Before  the  railway  scheme  was  started  they 
had  been  receiving  a  comfortable  dividend  of  5  per  cent, 
on  a  capital  of  £996,000.  The  railway  financiers  watered 
their  capital  about  30  per  cent,  and  cut  down  their 
dividends  one-half.  In  the  end  they  had  to  let  the  railway 
go  and  resume  possession  of  the  canal.  But  heavy  as 
their  loss  was,  that  of  the  public  was  infinitely  greater. 
Had  the  railway  been  built  as  was  proposed  in  1883,  it 
might  by  this  time  have  been  not  only  earning  good 
dividends,  but  effecting  large  economies  in  the  cost  of 
transit  traffic  through  London.  It  might  also  have  been 
acting  as  a  check  on  labour  unrest  so  far  as  the  dockers 
and  bargees  are  concerned. 

The  fate  of  the  Regent's  Canal,  City  and  Docks  Railway 
has  one  more  important  moral  for  us.  Its  promoters 
were  blackmailed  to  a  scandalous  extent  in  expenses.  The 
parliamentary  deposits  alone  cost  them  £310,000,  and 
other  charges  were  in  proportion.  The  company's  posU 
mortem  balance  sheet  showed  a  debit  of  over  £600,000. 
The  Greater  London  Railway  Bill  has  probably  been 
almost  as  costly  a  venture  for  its  financiers.  Need  we 
wonder  if  a  good  outer-circle  railway  has  still  to  be  built  ? 
The  task  has  to  be  approached  in  a  very  different  spirit 
from  that  of  the  Parfiament  and  the  railway  managers 
of  1883.  It  will  never  be  properly  executed  imtil  the 
pubhc  necessity  for  it  is  fully  recognised,  and  all  who 
are  to  benefit  by  it  show  their  willingness  to  treat  it  at 
least  fairly  if  not  generously. 


BOOK  THIRD— TECHNICAL 
CHAPTER  X 

THE   GOODS   SERVICE 

In  Chapter  III  a  full  description  has  been  given  of  the 
work  done  by  British  railways.  In  continuation  of  that 
we  have  now  to  see  how  they  do  it.  This  involves  an 
examination  of  their  principal  services.  Of  these  the 
most  important,  both  in  respect  of  earning  power  and  of 
public  benefit,  is  the  goods  service.  It  has  not  hitherto 
held  its  proper  place  in  our  railway  economics,  and  still 
less  in  the  estimation  of  our  railway  managers.  The 
fascination  which  the  showier  forms  of  railway  enterprise 
have  exercised  over  them  may  accoimt  for  the  excessive 
attention  they  have  bestowed  on  passenger  expresses, 
with  their  luxurious  and  costly  encumbrances  of  sleeping 
cars,  drawing-room  cars,  dining  cars  and  smokers.  The 
true  earning  power  of  such  trains  is  generally  in  inverse 
ratio  to  the  elegance  of  their  fittings  and  the  splendour  of 
their  upholstery.  It  is  the  well-loaded  goods  train  and 
not  the  magnificent  sixty-mile-an-hour  express  that  keeps 
a  railway  going.  If  it  depended  on  the  drawing-room  car, 
both  the  car  and  the  railway  might  soon  be  for  sale. 

The  keynote  of  modem  railway  administration  is  the 
supremacy  of  the  goods  service.  Where  that  is  recognised 
and  acted  upon  there  will  be  a  clear  road  to  success. 
Where  it  continues  to  be  ignored  and  neglected  as  it  has 
been  in  the  past  there  can  be  no  solid  progress ;  there  is 
more  likely  to  be  retrogression.  On  all  our  trunk  lines 
"  full  train  loads  "  is  now  the  motto,  but  even  they  cannot 
always  hve  up  to  it.    At  metropolitan  depots  and  in 

I  113 


114  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

large  centres  of  traffic  throughout  the  provinces  express 
goods  trains  can  be  loaded  from  end  to  end  and 
dispatched  all  over  the  country  two  or  three  times  a 
day.  They  can  be  run  on  regular  time-tables,  and  almost 
at  equal  speed  with  the  passenger  expresses,  of  which 
they  are  a  questionable  imitation. 

Even  second  and  third-rate  manufacturing  towns  in 
the  north  have  now  their  through  goods  non-stop  ex- 
presses. The  latest  evolution  of  these  appears  to  be  on 
the  North  British  Railway,  where  the  whole  system  is 
gridironed  with  them.  Carlisle  receives  no  less  than  eleven 
of  them  daily  from  various  points  at  the  northern  ex- 
tremities of  the  system.  Five  come  from  Glasgow  and 
the  west  of  Scotland,  three  from  Dundee,  and  one  each 
from  Edinburgh,  Falkirk  and  Grahamstown.  On  the 
east  coast  Newcastle  is  quite  as  liberally,  not  to  say 
lavishly  served,  and  one  of  these  expresses  runs  right 
through  to  King's  Cross.  Of  course  there  are  correspond- 
ing return  trains  both  from  Newcastle  and  Carlisle. 

The  speed  records  of  most  of  these  "  through  goods  " 
expresses  are  noteworthy.  The  Sighthill  (Glasgow)  to 
Newcastle  leaves  at  9.30  p.m.  and  arrives  at  7.10  a.m. 
next  morning,  doing  the  175  miles  in  nine  and  a  half 
hours.  But  that  is  slow  going  compared  with  the 
Glasgow  to  Berwick  and  the  south.  It  starts  at  7  p.m. 
daily  except  Saturday,  and  with  a  thirteen-minute 
stop  at  Niddrie  Jimction,  runs  right  through  to  Tweed- 
mouth,  where  it  passes  on  to  the  North-Eastern  system. 
This  104  miles  is  done  in  185  minutes,  or,  deducting  the 
thirteen-minute  stop,  172  minutes.  From  Tweedmouth 
it  rattles  on  to  York,  and  thence  to  King's  Cross,  where  it 
is  due  at  6  a.m.  on  the  following  morning.  The  time  for 
the  through  run  is  exactly  eleven  hours. 

The  reverse  train  from  Berwick  to  Glasgow  starts  at 
6.35  a.m.,  and  makes  a  non-stop  run  to  Niddrie  Junction, 
53  miles  in  80  minutes.  From  Niddrie  it  goes  right  through 
to  Parkhead,  46  miles  in  99  minutes,  and  enters  the  College 
goods  station,  Glasgow,  five  minutes  later.  The  running 
time  for  the  whole  journey  from  Berwick  to  Glasgow  is 
2  hours  4  minutes.     The  fastest  passenger  train  on  the 


THE  GOODS  SERVICE  115 

same  journey  takes  about  two  hours  and  a  half,  so  that 
in  this  case  goods  travel  quicker  than  live  freight.  An- 
other crack  goods  train  on  the  North  British  uses  the 
Waverley  route.  It  does  the  98  miles  in  3  hours  and  5 
minutes  with  thirty  loaded  wagons  :  the  best  passenger 
time  being  only  half-an-hour  less. 

Taking  the  North  British  as  a  typical  line,  these 
"  through  goods  "  expresses  differ  very  little  from  non- 
stop passenger  flyers.  They  have  to  be  engined  and 
braked  quite  as  expensively,  and  quite  as  much  care  has 
to  be  taken  in  running  them.  If  a  comparatively  small 
system  like  the  North  British  can  find  work  for  about 
a  score  of  such  trains,  how  many  of  them  are  there  likely 
to  be  on  the  great  trunk  lines  like  the  North- Western  and 
the  Midland  ?  The  total  number  running  between  the 
chief  provincial  cities  of  England  should  probably  be 
reckoned  by  hundreds.  Whether  they  all  pay  is  an  open 
question.  If  the  data  for  answering  it  were  available 
it  would  be  a  most  important  point  to  determine. 

In  their  favour  is  the  fact  that  as  a  rule  they  will  run 
with  full  loads.  That  will  probably  more  than  counter- 
balance the  extra  cost  of  their  fast  running  and  their 
expensive  maintenance.  It  may  easily  happen  that  the 
local  goods  trains  are  less  profitable  than  the  "  through 
goods."  They  labour  imder  the  most  serious  drawback 
that  goods  traffic  can  have  to  contend  with — flight  loading. 
It  may  seem  a  paradox  that  local  goods  traffic  should  tax 
the  skill  of  railway  officials  more  than  the  long-distance 
traffic,  but  a  very  slight  study  of  the  working  conditions 
in  the  two  cases  will  show  why  it  is  so.  Short-distance 
traffic  has  to  be  collected  in  small  quantities  from  station 
to  station.  It  travels  as  a  rule  in  wagons  which  may  not 
be  half  or  even  one-third  loaded.  It  runs  at  slow  speeds 
and  with  frequent  stops.  Both  the  train  itself  and  the 
goods  need  a  great  deal  more  handling,  and  that  is  an 
expensive  item  in  freight  movement. 

Speaking  without  definite  data  as  to  the  profitable 
character  of  the  principal  classes  of  goods  traffic,  we 
might  venture  to  say  that  the  "  through  goods  "  expresses 
pay  best  because  of  their  full  loading.     In  that  respect 


116  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

they  have  an  analogous  advantage  to  the  excursion  train, 
which  may  often  pay  through  sheer  force  of  numbers. 
The  local  goods  traffic,  even  when  most  carefully  and 
economically  worked,  is  so  expensive  that  it  must  often 
be  unremimerative.  We  are  still  more  sceptical  as  to  the 
parcel  business  of  the  railways  in  which  they  so  foolishly 
compete  with  the  Post  Office.  On  the  face  of  it  sending 
a  van  to  coUect  a  small  parcel,  carrying  it  a  hundred 
miles,  and  sending  out  another  van  to  deliver  it — ^all  for 
the  small  charge  of  sixpence — ^is  not  getting  ninepence  for 
fourpence,  but  the  other  way  round. 

It  took  our  railway  managers  a  good  many  years  to 
discover  that  full  train  loads  are  the  secret  of  success  in 
modern  transportation.  They  cannot  always  get  them 
either  in  their  goods  or  their  passenger  business.  For 
every  full  train  they  run  a  dozen  go  out  half  empty.  For 
the  public  as  well  as  for  the  railway  the  full  train  is  best, 
because  it  not  only  gives  the  quickest  service,  but  it  is 
generally  the  cheapest.  Railway  managers  are  therefore 
to  be  encouraged  to  make  the  full  train  their  motto.  It 
is  an  undoubtedly  good  motto,  though  it  was  borrowed 
from  the  United  States  along  with  many  other  less  obvious 
innovations,  as,  for  instance,  ton-mile  statistics.  There 
may  be  wide  differences  of  opinion  among  practical  as 
well  as  among  theoretical  railway  experts  as  to  the  best 
test  of  loaded  trains,  but  the  fidl  train  load  itself  is  an 
indisputable  axiom. 

It  is  gratifying  to  observe  that  railway  officials  are 
beginning  to  appreciate  its  importance,  and  even  the 
men  cannot  avoid  taking  an  interest  in  it,  though  they 
consider  it  contrary  to  trade  union  principles.  One  of 
their  chief  grievances  during  the  strike  of  1911  was  that 
heavier  trains  and  more  powerful  engines  enable  the 
railways  to  do  more  work  with  fewer  hands.  That  is 
unquestionably  true,  and  justifiable  to  boot.  It  is  the 
natural  and  legitimate  answer  of  worried  capital  to 
mutinous  labour.  But  for  fuller  and  fuller  train  loads  the 
railways  could  never  have  stood  up  as  they  have  done  to 
the  incessant  attacks  of  the  trade  unions  in  the  past  decade. 

The  full  train  load  is  the  crux  of  railway  efficiency  and 


THE  GOODS  SERVICE  117 

success.  It  is  the  crucial  problem  of  the  modern  railway 
manager,  and  there  can  be  no  more  interesting  or  in- 
structive study  than  the  innumerable  methods  by  which 
he  tries  to  solve  it.  The  latest  solution  in  use  is  the 
"  tranship  "  method,  by  which  small  consignments  from 
country  stations  are  passed  on  to  "  tranship  "  stations 
until  a  pa3dng  load  is  obtained  for  every  wagon  travelling 
any  distance.  This  system  requires  to  be  very  methodi- 
cally carried  out,  and  a  multitude  of  strict  rules  have  to 
be  laid  down  for  its  regulation.  Consequently  it  is  not 
popular  with  either  station  agents  or  their  staffs.  A  writer 
in  the  Great  Central  Railway  Journal  for  April  1911,  who 
has  evidently  studied  the  subject  from  the  inside,  says — 

*'  Local  conditions  vary  and  difficulties  often  arise  of 
which  headquarters  staff  know  nothing.  The  station 
staff  have  to  cope  with  the  trouble,  and  should  not  be  tied 
up  with  frivolous  instructions." 

At  the  same  time  he  admits  that  the  station  staff  cannot 
be  left  entirely  to  themselves.  Men  are  often  inclined, 
he  says,  to  send  a  wagon  away  empty  if  it  means  work  in 
gettmg  it  into  position. 

The  present  system  of  obtaining  the  average  load 
dispatched  from  each  station  is  not,  in  his  opinion,  satis- 
factory. He  would  substitute  for  it  a  daily  statement 
showing  the  average  load  for  local,  foreign  and  road 
wagons,  specially  noting  light  loads  and  the  reasons  for 
same.  It  should  also  state  what  foreign  wagons  have  been 
sent  away  empty.  By  this  means  he  thinks  it  would  be 
possible  to  put  a  finger  on  the  weak  spot  at  once,  and  not, 
as  is  now  often  the  case,  in  a  few  months'  time. 

That  last  sentence  embodies  the  unconscious  verdict 
of  a  practical  railway  man  on  the  ton-mile  theory.  Before 
ton-mile  figures  for  a  given  month  can  be  got  out  and 
put  in  proper  shape  to  submit  to  the  General  Manager,  it 
may  be  well  on  into  the  following  month.  To  this  official 
objection  the  ton-mile  theorists  have  never  yet  been  able 
to  return  a  conclusive  answer.  Then  there  is  a  still  more 
practical  objection  put  forward  by  the  men  who  have  to 
work  the  traffic.  Speaking  for  them,  the  writer  in  the 
Great  Central  Railway  Journal  says — 


118  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

"  Whilst  at  some  stations  it  is  possible  to  maintain 
average  loads  of  three  to  four  tons  (per  wagon),  there  are 
many  which  find  it  impossible  to  get  even  two  tons. 
Varying  traffic  is  responsible  for  this,  and  it  is  difficult 
for  a  foreman,  however  good,  to  follow  out  his  many 
instructions  as  to  getting  traffic  to  destination  promptly 
and  at  the  same  time  preventing  light  loads." 

The  "  tranship  "  system  he  regards  dubiously,  but  his 
opinion  of  it  has  evidently  been  formed  at  second  hand. 
It  is  therefore  not  of  great  value,  though  it  may  deserve 
passing  notice.  Some  companies,  he  observes,  have  en- 
deavoured to  prevent  light  loading  by  means  of  "  tranship 
stations  "  with  varying  results,  although  the  balance  of 
evidence  seems  to  be  more  or  less  in  their  favour.  Alto- 
gether light  loading  is  a  difficult  problem  in  connection 
with  local  goods  traffic.  Where  it  is  impossible  to  obtain 
full  loads  the  railways  have  a  certain  amount  of  justifi- 
cation for  charging  proportionately  higher  rates  on  such 
traffic.  Before  the  advent  of  the  road  motor  they  often 
did  penalise  short-distance  traffic,  but  now  that  there  is 
an  effective  check  on  them  they  will  be  wise  to  conform 
to  the  new  motor  rates  even  if  they  leave  very  little 
profit. 

On  long-distance  traffic,  and  especially  on  through 
traffic  exchanged  with  other  railways,  the  "  tranship  " 
system  may  become  very  valuable.  On  certain  trunk 
lines  it  has  been  most  elaborately  organised,  and  minute 
instructions  are  given  for  its  operation.  It  is  being 
carried  out  most  thoroughly  perhaps  on  the  London  and 
North- Western,  which  no  doubt  borrowed  the  idea  from 
its  American  friends.  Since  1905  there  has  been  in  use 
on  the  London  and  North- Western  a  book  of  "  Instructions 
as  to  working  of  road  vans  and  tranship  traffic."  It  is 
a  volume  of  over  a  hundred  pages,  in  which  aU  the  start- 
ing-points of  regular  goods  trains  are  arranged  alphabeti- 
cally. Under  each  starting-point  are  shown  the  various 
trains  and  their  destinations,  also  the  stations  served  by 
them.  It  explains  where  traffic  is  to  be  picked  up  or 
exchanged  or  transferred,  where  through  loads  are  to  be 
made  up,  where  tranship  wagons  are  to  be  attached  to 


THE  GOODS  SERVICE  119 

a  through  train,  where  goods  are  to  be  sent  on  by  pas- 
senger train,  where  they  are  to  be  carted  from  one  station 
to  another  in  order  to  go  forward  by  a  more  direct  route, 
where  they  are  to  be  shunted  in  order  to  fill  up  with  local 
goods,  and  innumerable  other  directions. 

The  object  of  these  minute  regulations  is  evidently 
twofold — ^first,  to  keep  a  check  on  half -loaded  wagons, 
and  secondly  to  minimise  the  risk  of  goods  going  astray. 
WTien  a  consignee  lodges  a  complaint  about  missing  goods, 
the  official  receiving  the  complaint  can  tell  at  once  by 
what  route  they  should  have  travelled,  and  where  they 
should  be  at  a  given  time.  He  knows  where  to  start 
making  inquiries  about  them,  and  the  chances  are  in  favour 
of  their  being  quickly  traced.  This  is  a  point  on  which 
our  railway  managers  may  plume  themselves.  Compared 
with  foreign  railways  their  percentage  of  lost  goods  is 
very  small,  and  the  percentage  of  recoveries  very  large. 
The  writer  had  this  fact  strongly  impressed  upon  him 
while  travelling  in  the  western  States.  Wherever  he 
broke  his  journey  he  found  the  baggage-room  in  a  high 
temperature  owing  to  complaints  about  missing  baggage. 

The  American  freight  department  is  also  unlucky. 
Consignments  go  astray  and  are  often  lost  for  weeks. 
Where  they  are  urgent  special  precautions  have  to  be 
taken  against  delay.  In  the  case  of  a  large  shipment  with 
a  long  distance  to  travel  the  railroad  imdertakes  to  advise 
the  consignee  day  by  day  of  the  point  it  has  reached 
and  how  it  is  proceeding.  On  British  railways,  and 
especially  on  those  where  the  "  tranship  "  system  is  well 
developed,  no  such  special  arrangements  are  needed. 
If  the  regulations  laid  down  in  the  "  tranship  "  book  are 
faithfully  observed,  goods  should  travel  almost  as  methodi- 
cally as  passengers,  and  should  reach  their  destinations 
almost  as  punctually. 

In  a  brief  preface  to  the  "  tranship  "  book  of  the 
London  and  North-Western  Railway,  general  instructions 
are  given  as  to  the  loading  of  goods  traffic,  the  use  of 
road  vans,  the  amalgamation  of  loads,  etc.  The  idea 
of  transhipment  is  to  separate  through  traffic  as  far  as 
possible  from  local.     The  former  is  to  be  sent  forward 


120  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

by  the  regular  through  trains  to  its  proper  "  tranship  '* 
station,  while  the  latter  is  to  be  carried  by  road  vans 
serving  the  intermediate  stations.  The  first  sentence  in 
the  regulations  says — 

"  The  agent  at  a  station  which  starts  a  road  van  for 
delivery  at  various  destinations  will  be  held  responsible 
for  seeing  that  it  is  fully  and  properly  utilised,  and  for 
reporting  to  his  District  Goods  Manager  any  case  of  light 
or  unnecessary  running  or  other  irregularities." 

No  road  van  is  to  start  with  a  load  of  less  than  15  cwt., 
unless  it  is  specially  authorised  by  the  District  Goods 
Manager,  or  is  the  only  van  covering  a  certain  section  of 
the  line,  in  which  case  it  must  run  daily  irrespective  of 
weight.  The  last  clause  deserves  to  be  taken  note  of,  as 
it  lays  down  the  wholesome  principle  that  every  section 
of  the  London  and  North-Western  Railway  is  to  have  at 
least  one  goods  service  daily.  When  a  road  van  on 
reaching  a  "  tranship  "  station  has  less  than  15  cwt.  of 
a  load,  it  must  have  its  load  increased  if  there  be  goods 
available  for  it.  If  not  it  must  unload  at  the  "  tranship  " 
station,  so  that  goods  for  competitive  points  may  go 
forward  by  a  tnrough  train  the  same  night. 

Even  separate  stations  in  the  same  town  and  separate 
loading  depots  or  sidings  at  the  same  station  are  required 
to  co-operate  in  the  amalgamation  of  loads.  Every  effort, 
it  is  said,  must  be  made  to  amalgamate  loads  for  the  same 
destination,  either  by  carting  or  by  using  partly  loaded 
wagons,  that  is,  wagons  provided  at  one  part  of  the 
station  for  conveyance  of  goods  accumulated  at  another 
part. 

The  station  agent  is  of  course  an  important  person  in 
the  carrying  out  of  these  regulations.  He  has  not  only 
to  supervise  his  staff,  but  he  has  to  educate  them.  Qause 
13  of  the  general  instructions  says  that  "  agents  are  held 
responsible  for  seeing  that  their  foremen  checkers  and 
loaders  are  educated  as  to  the  proper  usage  of  foreign 
wagons,  selection  of  suitable  vehicles,  and  the  standardisa- 
tion of  loading  for  particular  classes  of  traffic,  also  as  to 
the  method  of  starting  and  building  up  the  loads  so  as 
to   secure    wherever   possible    (consistent    with   safety) 


THE  GOODS  SERVICE  121 

loading  to  the  maximum  carrying  capacity  of  the  trucks." 
They  have  further  to  watch  and  report  cases  where  light 
or  duplicate  loads  are  received  from  local  stations,  as  well 
as  instances  of  duplicate  or  light  loads  of  unimportant 
traffic  being  received  from  foreign  lines. 

In  short,  the  station  agent  is  expected  to  be  Argus- 
eyed.  He  is  not  only  to  have  a  himdred  eyes,  but  he  is 
to  keep  turning  them  in  all  directions,  watching  not  only 
his  own  staff  but  his  brother  agents.  The  misdeeds 
and  irregularities  of  foreign  lines  have  to  be  duly  recorded 
in  his  daily  reports.  Between  District  Goods  Managers 
who  may  not  be  exactly  sweet-tempered,  and  checkers 
who  are  often  cantankerous,  the  poor  station-master 
cannot  fail  to  have  some  bad  quarters  of  an  hour.  He 
would  be  an  angel  if  he  took  in  the  official  organ  of  the 
National  Union  of  Railwaymen  and  could  read  without 
a  blush  what  his  head  porter  or  possibly  the  lamp-cleaner 
says  about  him  at  the  Sunday  meetings  of  the  local 
branch.  He  may  now  hope,  however,  that  less  of  that 
trade  union  insolence  is  to  be  tolerated  hereafter.  All 
the  companies  had  allowed  it  to  be  carried  to  a 
disgraceful  length,  but  now  apparently  some  examples 
are  being  made  of  the  worst  offenders.  So  much  to  the 
good  for  the  long-suffering  station  agent. 

It  is  due  to  our  railway  managers,  after  the  severe 
but  not  always  intelligent  criticism  that  is  poured  out 
on  them,  to  acknowledge  that  they  are  at  last  beginning 
to  appreciate  the  scientific  side  of  their  work.  Many  of 
them  are  appljdng  themselves  earnestly  to  the  economical 
working  of  their  goods  traffic.  The  many  complex 
questions  involved  are  beginning  to  receive  systematic 
consideration.  American  methods  are  being  studied 
with  an  open  mind  and  a  readiness  to  admit  that  they 
are  sometimes  ahead  of  our  own.  But  on  the  threshold 
a  serious  obstacle  is  encountered  in  the  fact  that  the 
British  and  American  methods  of  handling  freight  differ 
fimdamentally. 

A  few  examples  will  suffice  to  illustrate  and  enforce 
this  oft-forgotten  truth.  Our  railways  not  only  trans- 
port goods  by  rail,  but  they  collect  and  deliver  them. 


122  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

American  roads  only  haul  them  from  station  to  station. 
Collection  and  delivery  charges  have  therefore  to  be 
eliminated  from  our  rates  before  they  can  be  fairly  com- 
pared with  American  rates,  which  cover  only  haulage 
from  station  to  station. 

The  ton  is  the  invariable  unit  of  charge  on  heavy 
shipments,  whereas  American  shippers  can  have  special 
rates  for  five-ton  lots,  car  loads  of  30  to  50  tons,  or  train 
loads  of  from  800  to  2000  tons. 

Freight  rates  in  America  include  forty-eight  hours' 
demurrage,  which  is  so  much  free  warehousing  to  the 
consignee.  He  has  it  extended  when  the  railroad  can 
do  so  without  inconvenience,  and  goods  are  often  re- 
shipped  from  a  freight  depot  without  having  been  touched 
by  the  original  consignee.  For  these  facilities  American 
roads  make  no  extra  charge,  while  British  railways 
start  at  once  with  a  charge  for  terminals ;  they  are  also 
more  strict  in  levying  demurrage,  and  British  freight 
as  a  rule  has  to  undergo  a  larger  amount  of  handling 
than  American. 

"  Accommodation  Sidings  "  are  much  more  liberally 
provided  by  American  than  by  British  railways.  Every 
factory  or  warehouse  of  any  importance  has  one.  Manu- 
facturers and  merchants  are  encouraged  to  locate  them- 
selves close  to  railroad  tracks,  where  they  can  load  and 
unload  on  to  their  own  sidings.  They  lease  sites  from 
the  railroad  company  at  nominal  rentals,  and  put  up 
their  own  buildings.  The  sidings  are  generally  also 
rented,  and  some  of  them  are  miles  long.  Not  only  do 
shippers  thereby  escape  terminal  charges,  which  on  our 
short  hauls  may  be  40  or  50  per  cent,  of  the  rate 
proper,  but  a  much  larger  saving  is  effected  in  handling 
the  freight.  The  dray  work  in  New  York  is  not  half 
so  troublesome  as  in  London,  though  the  bulk  of  the 
freight  in  transit  must  be  considerably  greater. 

The  method  of  operating  freight  trains  in  America 
may  also  deserve  more  consideration  than  it  has  yet 
received  from  British  managers.  It  differs  radically 
from  the  British  method,  and  if  a  fair  experiment  could 
be  made  with  it  on  a  British  line,  it  might  be  found  more 


THE   GOODS  SERVICE  123 

economical.  An  ounce  of  fact  is  worth  a  ton  of  theory 
in  railway  work  as  in  all  other  practical  walks  of  life. 
But  any  railway  making  the  experiment  would  have  to 
be  prepared  for  a  complete  reorganisation  of  its  traffic 
department.  It  would  have  to  transfer  one-half  of  its 
goods  porters  from  stations  to  trains  and  dispense  with  the 
other  half.  Each  train  on  the  American  principle  would 
have  a  complete  working  staff  of  its  own  — "  crew  "  is  the 
technical  term — and  be  able  to  load  or  unload  freight  at 
any  point  without  local  help. 

A  "  train  crew  "  consists  of  driver,  fireman,  conductor 
and  two  or  three  brake-men,  who  act  as  travelling  porters. 
A  train  thus  manned  can  run  into  a  station,  deliver  freight 
and  pick  up  new  freight  without  seeing  any  one  but  the 
station  agent  or  his  deputy.  Through  trains  call  only 
at  principal  stations — "  division  points  " — which  may 
be  100  or  120  miles  apart.  "  Local  freights  "  calling  at 
all  stations  do  the  local  business,  and  also  pick  up  through 
freight,  which  they  carry  to  the  calling  stations  of  the 
through  trains.  This,  it  will  be  seen,  is  a  more  elastic 
system  than  ours,  and  under  better  control  from  a  labour 
point  of  view.  Goods  porters  have  not  to  be  kept  at 
stations  where  they  may  be  needed  only  now  and  then, 
or  where  they  may  have  only  a  few  hours'  work  per  day. 
A  "  train  crew  "  is  bound  to  be  always  in  full  work.  When 
required  an  extra  train  may  be  put  on — complete  in  itself 
like  all  the  others.  In  the  reverse  case  a  train  can  be 
taken  off  or  its  trips  may  be  rearranged  in  order  to  give 
it  full  employment.  All  this  can  be  done  without  refer- 
ence to  the  station  staffs,  which  compared  with  our  own 
are  very  small. 

The  issue  to  which  we  invite  the  attention  of  British 
railway  officials  is  between  stationary  freight  handlers 
and  travelHng  freight  handlers.  Whether  can  a  given 
quantity  of  freight  be  moved  quicker  and  cheaper  by  the 
one  system  or  the  other  ?  Prima  facie,  if  goods  porters 
be  distributed  along  the  line  at  fixed  points,  each  fixed 
point  will  require  a  maximum  supply  of  them.  Unless 
they  are  to  be  at  times  greatly  overworked,  their  number 
must  be  in  excess  of  normal  requirements,  which  can 


124  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

never  happen  with  a  train  crew.  The  latter  can  be  in- 
creased or  diminished  at  pleasure ;  trains  may  be  put  on 
or  taken  off  at  an  hour's  notice.  Economy  of  labour 
would  seem  to  be  decidedly  with  the  Americans. 

To  give  the  **  train  crew  "  system  a  fair  chance  on  a 
British  railway,  collection  and  delivery  would  have  to  be 
abolished  along  with  the  extra  porters  at  goods  stations. 
It  might  work  pretty  well  without  that  change,  but  it 
would  work  much  better  if  shippers  were  to  do  their  own 
collection  and  delivery,  as  in  the  States.  Here,  too, 
economy  of  labour  is  possible,  and,  what  would  be  a  still 
greater  boon,  heavy  traffic  on  the  streets  might  be  re- 
duced. Instead  of  every  railway  having  its  own  cart- 
age outfit — sometimes  overworked  and  at  other  times 
underworked  —  one  or  two  agencies  might  act  for 
them  all.  Our  street  traffic  would  thereby  be  immensely 
relieved,  with  better  service  rendered  at  the  same  time 
to  traders. 

The  public  if  not  the  railways,  but  probably  both, 
would  gain  by  putting  the  railway  companies  back  as 
near  as  possible  into  their  original  position  of  traffic 
haulers.  In  course  of  time  all  the  irritating  questions  of 
terminal  charges  and  cartage  rates  might  be  got  rid  of. 
The  railways,  if  restricted  to  their  proper  business  of 
hauling  freight  from  station  to  station,  could  simplify 
their  work  immensely.  As  a  natural  consequence  they 
might  be  able  to  do  it  better  and  more  economically.  A 
traffic  manager,  who,  instead  of  having  his  mind  dis- 
sipated over  a  score  of  side  questions,  could  concentrate 
it  on  the  single  problem  of  how  to  move  a  train  load  of 
goods  over  a  given  distance  at  a  minimum  cost  might 
discover  possibilities  of  economy  undreamt  of  hitherto. 

That  problem,  which  is  the  true  railway  problem,  and 
the  basis  of  all  transportation  systems,  calls  impatiently 
for  solution  in  this  country.  Far  from  being  solved,  it 
is  only  beginning  to  be  realised.  In  the  United  States 
it  is  being  eagerly  studied,  and  that  is  the  secret  of  the 
remarkable  progress  the  American  railroads  have  made 
in  the  past  decade.  Our  railway  officials  are  too  often 
hampered  by  the  cast-iron  rules  they  work  imder,  which 


THE  GOODS  SERVICE  126 

leave  very  little  room  for  original  thought  or  initiative. 
Nevertheless  one  occasionally  meets  in  the  railway  press 
with  startling  suggestions. 

In  the  Great  Western  Railway  Magazine  for  August 
1912  Mr.  F.  W.  French  of  Helston  throws  out  quite  an 
American  idea.  The  present  system  of  station  truck 
working  he  truly  declares  to  be  antiquated,  and  he  asks 
if  there  could  not  be  substituted  for  it  a  sorting  train  which 
would  entirely  eliminate  road-side  work.  The  idea  has 
evidently  been  suggested  to  him  by  the  Post  Office  sorting 
van  arrangement.  It  would,  in  fact,  be  an  adaptation 
of  the  letter-sorting  method  to  parcel  and  light  goods 
traffic.  At  the  same  time  it  would  be  an  approximation 
to  the  "  train  crew  "  system  of  the  American  railways. 
I  have  already  observed  that  this  would  be  an  experiment 
well  worth  trying. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  PASSENGER   SERVICE 

The  fundamental  problems  of  goods  traffic  and  of 
passenger  traffic  are  practically  alike.  It  is  the  full 
train  load  that  governs  both.  But  very  different  solutions 
are  sought  for  in  the  two  cases.  In  the  goods  service 
direct  business-like  methods  are  taken  to  secure  as  full 
a  train  load  as  possible.  Small  consignments  are  amal- 
gamated at  successive  points  on  the  route  until  they 
reach  paying  quantities.  There  is  reason  to  believe 
that  this  policy  when  carried  out  with  energy  and  intelli- 
gence produces  very  satisfactory  results  both  for  traders 
and  shareholders.  It  is  therefore  all  the  more  surprising 
that  exactly  opposite  methods  should  be  applied  to  the 
passenger  service. 

Instead  of  trying  to  fill  up  their  regular  trains,  railway 
managers  when  they  want  a  full  train  load  advertise  a 
special  excursion  to  some  popular  resort.  Instead  of 
charging  the  regular  fare  for  these  excursions  they  offer 
tickets  at  a  hali,  a  third  or  even  a  fourth  of  what  regular 
passengers  have  to  pay.  This  practice  is  now  almost 
peculiar  to  British  railways.  It  never  attained  in  any 
other  coimtry  the  absurd  development  which  it  has 
received  here.  What  there  was  of  it  in  other  countries 
is  being  given  up,  and  a  gradual  return  is  being  made  to 
the  original  principle  of  flat  rates.  On  the  State  railways 
of  Germany  not  only  have  excursion  fares,  circular  tours 
and  all  other  special  rates  been  abohshed,  but  return 
tickets  have  been  withdrawn. 

This  was  done,  however,  in  such  a  way  that  the  public 
gained  rather  than  lost  by  the  change.     Wherever  a  return 

126 


THE  PASSENGER  SERVICE  127 

fare  was  abolished  the  two  single  fares  were  reduced  to 
the  level  of  the  old  return  fare.  Thus  where  the  single 
ticket  had  been  a  shilling  and  the  return  eighteenpence, 
the  single  ticket  was  reduced  to  ninepence.  The  ultimate 
effect  of  the  readjustment  was  that  the  Grerman  State 
railways  have  now  a  perfectly  simple  and  uniform  tariff 
based  on  mileage.  They  charge  the  lowest  rates  possible 
for  each  class,  and  every  passenger  pays  so  much  per  mile 
no  matter  whether  he  travels  five  miles  or  five  hundred. 
Many  British  tourists,  in  happy  ignorance  of  this  change, 
continue  to  arm  themselves  beforehand  with  circular 
tour  tickets.  The  reduction  they  obtain  on  them  is  purely 
imaginary,  as  the  price  charged  is  simply  the  sum-total 
of  the  separate  fares.  In  fact  they  get  a  separate  ticket 
for  each  section  of  their  journey. 

This  truth  may  be  brought  home  in  a  rather  unpleasant 
way  to  tourists  who  try  to  get  circular  tours  at  a  German 
railway  station.  In  the  first  place  you  will  most  likely 
be  told  that  the  circular  tour  office  is  somewhere  outside. 
When  you  find  it  you  will  be  confronted  with  a  row  of 
military-looking  officials.  After  humbly  explaining  to 
one  of  them  where  you  wish  to  go  and  by  what  route, 
you  wiU  be  silently  and  severely  handed  a  printed  form 
to  fill  up.  If  you  should  look  particularly  bewildered, 
or  if  the  clerk  is  in  unusually  good  humour,  he  may 
refer  you  to  a  big  book  lying  on  a  table  in  the  middle 
of  the  room.  This  is  a  dictionary  of  fares  far  more 
formidable  than  the  British  Bradshaw.  The  first  glance 
at  it  inclines  you  to  throw  up  the  sponge  and  return  to 
the  railway  station  determined  to  pay  as  you  go. 

At  that  moment  a  benevolent  German  takes  pity 
on  your  distress  and  shows  you  how  to  fish  out  the  details 
necessary  to  make  up  your  Rundreise.  For  every 
separate  section  of  it  you  have  to  find  the  mileage  and  the 
fare,  and  enter  them  in  the  proper  place  in  the  schedule. 
Having  laboriously  collected  and  entered  them  all  and 
added  up  the  amounts,  you  return  the  form  to  the  official 
Cerberus,  who  with  a  stony  look  accepts  your  money. 
If  you  should  fondly  imagine  that  you  are  going  to  get  your 
ticket  on  the  spot  you  will  suffer  another  disappointment. 


128  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

He  will  probably  tell  you  to  return  in  the  evening  about 
a  quarter  of  an  hour  after  the  last  night  train  has 
gone  through. 

It  is  useless  to  argue  with  him,  still  less  to  appeal  to 
his  magnanimity.  You  will  not  get  your  circular  ticket 
a  moment  earlier  than  the  appointed  time,  and  when 
you  get  it  you  will  discover  that  you  have  wasted  a  day 
for  nothing.  You  might  have  gone  on  in  the  morning 
paying  the  local  fares  all  the  way  roimd,  and  come  out 
even  on  the  transaction.  In  short,  the  German  Bund- 
reise-hillet  has  degenerated  into  a  huge  Teutonic  joke. 
Why  it  was  not  abolished  altogether  on  the  introduction 
of  the  new  single  fare  system  I  cannot  guess.  Perhaps 
it  was  retained  in  order  to  demonstrate  by  contrast  the 
sweet  simpHcity  of  the  uniform  mileage  rate.  The  latter 
is  certainly  a  good  thing  in  itself,  and  is  popular  with 
the  Germans,  as  it  will  also  be  with  British  tourists  when 
they  begin  to  understand  it. 

In  the  United  States  a  similar  reversion  to  uniform 
fares  has  also  taken  place  in  the  past  few  years.  Special 
fares  are  granted  only  for  special  occasions,  such  as 
political  conventions  or  public  conferences .  Then  they  are 
hedged  round  with  limitations  as  to  routes  and  length  of 
time  available.  Excursions  are  frequently  organised  by 
Societies  or  private  speculators,  but  seldom  by  a  railroad 
company  on  its  own  account.  Almost  the  only  privileged 
fare  that  survives  is  the  thousand-mile  ticket,  which  was 
the  original  model  of  the  strip  ticket  now  extensively 
used  on  tramways  and  tube  railways.  These  are  rational 
and  equitable  forms  of  commutation,  but  unfortunately 
the  attempt  to  introduce  them  in  this  country  has  been 
an  indifferent  success.  The  only  railway,  I  believe, 
which  now  issues  thousand-mile  tickets  is  the  North- 
Eastern,  and  even  it  does  not  push  them  much.  The 
strip  ticket  is  chiefly  used  for  workmen's  trains,  for  which 
also  weekly  tickets  can  be  had. 

The  standard  form  of  commutation  on  British  rail- 
ways is  now  the  season  ticket.  It  is  imiversal  on  metro- 
politan lines  (with  the  exception  of  the  latest  tubes),  and 
also  in  provincial  cities.     It  is  pecuharly  suited  to  the 


THE  PASSENGER  SERVICE  129 

enormous  masses  of  suburban  traffic  which  have  now  to 
be  dealt  with  morning  and  night.  It  is  difficult  to  see 
how  they  could  be  handled  in  any  other  way.  The  issuing 
and  checking  of  nearly  a  million  tickets  twice  a  day  would 
be  physically  impossible.  But  necessary  and  convenient 
as  the  season  ticket  may  be,  it  is  a  very  rough-and-readv 
way  of  charging  for  the  transportation  of  passengers,  it 
may  mean  to  one  passenger  a  single  journey  per  day,  to 
another  two,  to  another  three,  and  in  fact  anything  up 
to  spending  a  whole  day  on  the  train. 

If  the  actual  journeys  made  in  a  week  by  half-a-dozen 
season  ticket  holders  with  the  same  class  of  ticket  were 
reduced  to  mileage,  it  might  be  found  that  A  had  travelled 
twice  as  far  as  B,  and  B  three  times  as  far  as  C.  But  all 
had  paid  the  same  price  for  their  tickets,  so  that  while 
C's  fare  worked  out  at  a  halfpenny  per  mile,  B's  might 
average  only  a  farthing  per  mile,  and  A's  an  eighth  of  a 
penny.  This  is  not  only  a  very  random  method  of 
charging  for  transportation,  but  it  involves  a  great  deal 
of  unfair  discrimination  between  passengers,  and  in  many 
cases  heavy  loss  to  shareholders.  There  is  no  pretence 
of  scientific  basis  for  it.  It  acknowledges  no  standard 
either  of  equity  or  value. 

Season  ticket  rates  are  notoriously  arbitrary  and 
capricious.  There  is  not  a  word  to  be  said  in  their  favour, 
except  that  they  are  very  simple  and  easily  worked. 
Consequently  they  give  little  trouble  either  to  the  ticket 
holders  or  to  the  railway  officials.  That  is  their  one  merit, 
and  it  is  dearly  bought  at  the  price  of  inequality  and 
fraud.  But  if  the  season  ticket  goes  too  far  in  the 
direction  of  absolute  uniformity,  our  railway  managers 
restore  the  balance  by  the  multiplicity  and  diversity  of 
their  ordinary  fares.  On  the  Brighton  line  one  may  get 
a  first-class  season  ticket  for  about  £40  a  year,  and  if  he 
uses  it  twice  a  day — that  is,  up  and  down — ^the  total 
journeys  made  in  a  year  will  be,  say,  626.  Their  average 
cost  will  be  under  Is.  4:d.,  or  little  more  than  half  of  the 
lowest  fare  charged  to  a  cheap  tripper,  and  less  than  a 
third  of  the  ordinary  parliamentary  fare. 

The  time-honoured  adage  about  making  a  reduction 


130  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

on  taking  a  quantity  is  not  to  be  lightly  spoken  of,  but 
in  this  instance  it  is  surely  being  carried  too  far.  The 
first-class  return  fare  from  London  to  Brighton  is  I65., 
and  313  return  journeys  would  cost  at  that  rate  £234. 
The  "  discount  on  taking  a  quantity  "  is  therefore  about 
90  per  cent.  Either  that  is  an  unreasonable  reduction  to 
give  to  the  season  ticket  holder,  or  the  ordinary  return 
fare  is  unreasonably  high.  There  is  no  visible  proportion 
between  the  two,  and  no  principle  can  be  discovered  in 
the  fixing  of  them.  Neither  of  them  bears  an  intelligible 
relation  to  the  other,  and  still  less  to  the  hundreds  of  other 
fares  chargeable  on  the  Brighton  Railway.  The  sug- 
gestion that  there  should  be  any  relation  between  them 
would  possibly  excite  surprise  in  railway  board-rooms 
generally. 

Previous  to  1888  freight  rate  books  were  the  standing 
puzzles  of  British  railway  administration.  They  were 
then  reduced  to  comparative  order  and  inteUigibility. 
Though  they  are  not  yet  by  any  means  perfect,  they 
shine  beside  the  Babel  of  passenger  fares  that  are  still 
in  force.  There  is  hardly  a  town  of  any  importance  in 
the  three  kingdoms  but  has  five  or  six  different  prices 
to  pay  for  the  transportation  it  purchases  from  the  local 
railways.  A  resident  in  one  of  them  who  makes  a  journey 
on  Monday  is  probably  charged  full  third-class  fare,  say 
10s.  For  the  same  journey  on  Wednesday  he  may  get 
the  benefit  of  the  weekly  cheap  trip,  and  so  save  4s.  or  5s. 
For  a  week-end  ticket  he  may  have  to  pay  8s.  In  summer 
he  may  have  a  tourist  return  good  for  a  month  for  6s. 
When  the  excursions  are  on  he  may  have  a  large  choice  of 
them  two  or  three  times  a  week  for  half-a-crown. 

Until  one  goes  to  London  Bridge  or  Liverpool  Street  or 
Victoria,  he  can  never  guess  what  the  cost  of  his  projected 
trip  is  to  be.  It  varies  not  only  with  the  days  of  the 
week,  but  with  the  time  of  day.  The  same  journey  may 
be  50  per  cent,  less  in  the  afternoon  than  it  would  have 
been  in  the  morning.  To  go  to  the  same  place  may  cost 
20s.  on  a  Friday  night  and  30s.  on  any  other  night.  These 
are  eccentricities  of  our  passenger  service  which  no  one 
can  account  for,  much  less  justify.     They  have  grown 


THE  PASSENGER  SERVICE  131 

up  with  the  system,  and  become  so  firmly  embedded  in 
it  that  it  will  need  a  very  hard  wrench  to  pull  them  out. 

It  is  surely  a  peculiar  irony  to  find  such  absurdities 
flourishing  in  the  home  of  the  penny  post  and  the  sixpenny 
telegram.  For  a  counterpart  of  our  passenger  fares  in 
the  year  1913  we  have  to  go  back  to  the  protectionist 
tariffs  of  a  century  ago  with  their  twelve  hundred  and 
odd  classes  of  dutiable  imports.  What  curious  affinity 
can  there  be  between  the  up-to-date  railway  booking- 
office  of  to-day  and  the  antiquated  Custom  House  of  a 
century  ago  ?  Smart  railwaymen  may  jeer  at  the  old- 
world  fiscal  tariffs  who  never  suspect  that  their  own 
passenger  tariffs  are  framed  on  the  same  model.  They 
are  divided  and  sub-divided  in  the  same  arbitrary  way, 
overloaded  with  unnecessary  differences  and  distinctions, 
and  made  as  puzzling  as  possible  to  distracted  passengers. 

It  is  in  the  concoction  of  needlessly  differentiated 
return  tickets  that  the  perverse  ingenuity  of  the  modern 
ticket  clerk  shines  most  conspicuously.  Not  content  with 
creating  unnecessary  variations  in  the  fares  themselves, 
he  further  muddles  them  up  by  making  them  valid  for 
two,  five,  eight,  fourteen  or  sixteen  days  as  strikes  his 
fancy.  He  evidently  sees  a  difference  wluch  is  perceptible 
to  nobody  else  between  carrying  people  on  a  Wednesday 
and  carrying  them  on  a  Saturday.  He  has  occult  reasons 
of  his  own  for  assuming  that  they  should  pay  more  for 
bringing  them  home  in  the  second  week  of  their  holiday 
than  in  the  first.  The  simple  fact  that  it  is  the  same  man 
that  has  to  be  brought  back  whether  in  two,  five,  eight 
or  sixteen  days  never  seems  to  have  occurred  to  him. 

As  a  reductio  ad  ahsurdum  of  the  British  method  let  us 
take  one  or  two  famiHar  cases,  beginning  with  Cromer. 
This  popular  watering-place  is  subject  to  half-a-dozen 
different  time  limits  on  its  London  returns.  Two  single 
tickets  cost  2\s,  A  tourist  return  good  for  six  months 
costs  208.  A  fortnightly  return  is  5s.  less,  a  week-ender 
is  1  Is.,  and  a  day  trip  is  5s.  6d.  Very  probably  the  cheap 
tripper  rides  in  the  best  train  of  the  lot,  makes  the  best 
time,  and  is  altogether  best  treated.  This  is  another 
paradoxical  development  of  modern  passenger  fares — 


132  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

very  often  the  less  you  pay  the  more  you  get  for  it.  The 
writer  frequently  uses  a  Cook's  excursion  train  from  London 
Bridge  to  Worthing.  It  runs  on  Saturdays  and  Mondays, 
starts  at  a  more  convenient  hour  than  any  of  the  regular 
trains,  goes  through  to  Brighton  with  one  stop, — makes 
close  connection  there  with  a  fast  train  for  Worthing,  and 
reaches  its  destination  half -an -hour  sooner  than  any 
regular  train  could  do  it. 

In  every  respect  this  is  absolutely  one  of  the  best  trains 
on  the  Brighton  system,  barring,  of  course,  the  Pullman 
expresses.  Its  return  fare  is  35.  compared  with  9s.  2d. 
for  two  single  fares  by  an  ordinary  train,  or  7s.  9d.  for 
a  week-end  return.  A  two-day  return  by  the  excursion 
train  can  be  got  for  4s.  6<i.,  and  a  three-day  return  for 
5s. J  the  return  halves  being  valid  on  any  regular  train. 
Now  here  is  a  conundrum  for  the  Brighton  Railway 
Company — on  what  principle  do  you  charge  35.  for  a 
return  ticket  to  Worthing  by  a  fast  non-stop  train,  and 
7s.  9d.  for  a  similar  ticket  by  a  slow  train  calling  perhaps 
at  all  stations,  and  wasting  an  extra  hour  of  the  passenger's 
time? 

A  similar  conundrum  might  be  put  to  the  Great  Eastern 
Railway — what  need  is  there  to  offer  the  public  a  be- 
wildering choice  of  eight  different  prices  for  such  a  simple 
service  as  transportation  from  London  to  Cromer  and 
back  again  ?  The  ascending  scale  of  return  fares  is  like 
Jacob's  ladder,  it  begins  very  low  down  and  ends  very 
high  up.     This  is  how  it  ascends — 

Return  Fare  London  to  Cromer. 
1  day.  3  to  5  days.  8  days.  14  days. 

65.  6d.  8s.  6d.  lis.  Qd.  15s. 

Week-end.  Fortnightly.  Tourist.  Double  Fare. 

lis.  15s.  205.  2l5. 

The  one-day  fare  averages  0*246^. — ^rather  less  than  a 
farthing  per  mile,  while  the  week-ender  pays  about  a 
halfpenny  per  mile,  and  the  regular  passenger  a  penny  per 
mile.  Often  there  will  be  samples  of  these  eight  different 
tickets  on  the  same  train.     If  all  the  holders  happened 


THE  PASSENGER  SERVICE  133 

to  meet  and  compare  notes,  the  people  who  had  paid  the 
penny  a  mile  would  hardly  approve  of  the  modern  railway 
policy  of  charging  eight  different  prices  for  the  same 
article. 

The  policy  of  charging  by  time  as  well  as  by  mileage  is 
also  extensively  practised  on  the  Midland  Railway.  Here 
it  is  carried  the  length  of  caricature.  The  following 
schedule  of  return  fares  with  time  limits  is  enforced  on 
Bank  holidays  between  London  and  Leicester — 

Half-day.  One  day.  Two  days.  Three  days. 

3s,  9d.  6s,  8s.  9s. 

Between  London  and  Loughborough  they  are — 

Half -day.  One  day.  Two  days.  Three  days. 

4:8.  3d.  Is.  Gd.  ds.  105. 

Between  London  and  Sheifield  this  is,  or  used  to  be, 
the  scale — 

Half -day.  One  day.  Two  days.  Three  days. 

5s.   Qd.  ds.  105.  145. 

What  difference  did  it  make  to  the  railway  company 
whether  these  people  returned  the  same  day  or  next  day 
or  the  day  after  ?  In  other  lines  of  business  the  price 
of  a  service  is  supposed  to  be  determined  chiefly  by  its 
cost  to  the  person  who  renders  it.  Here  the  cost  of 
transporting  passengers  between  London  and  Sheffield 
would  be  practically  the  same  on  all  the  four  days  of  which 
they  had  the  choice.  To  charge  them  for  time  in  addition 
to  the  initial  charge  for  mileage  is  a  proceeding  of  question- 
able legality.  As  a  matter  of  business  it  is  certainly  not 
sound,  neither  is  it  calculated  to  enhance  the  popularity 
of  railway  methods. 

The  German  flat  rate  of  so  much  per  mile  Saturdays 
and  Sundays,  summer  and  winter,  on  short  distances  or 
long  distances,  is  not  only  simpler,  but  there  is  a  quiet 
dignity  and  uniformity  about  it  worthy  of  imitation 
nearer  home. 


134  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

No  railway  manager  will  pretend  for  a  moment  that  the 
practice  of  making  half-a-dozen  prices  for  the  same  article 
is  good  business.  Still  less  can  he  claim  that  it  makes 
good  statistics.  British  fares  are  so  shuffled  and  confused 
that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  strike  a  true  average  of 
their  yield  per  mile.  Nearly  five  years  ago  Sir  George 
Paish  raised  this  interesting  question  at  the  Railway 
Shareholders'  Conference  of  1908,  but  it  has  not  been 
followed  up  as  it  should  have  been,  thanks  to  the  in- 
curable apathy  of  the  shareholders  themselves.  He 
expressed  very  neatly  the  dilemma  in  which  our  railway 
managers  had  landed  themselves  by  their  reckless  and 
gratuitous  rate-cutting — 

"It  is  very  desirable,"  he  said,  "  that  information 
should  be  available  of  the  kind  of  passenger  traffic  carried. 
In  the  early  days  of  railways  practically  the  whole  of  the 
traffic  was  carried  at  what  are  known  as  ordinary  fares — 
the  fares  which  the  companies  are  required  to  post  in  the 
railway  stations.  But  as  time  has  passed  they  have 
issued  great  numbers  of  cheap  tickets.  Were  information 
available,  probably  it  would  show  that  the  railway  com- 
panies at  the  present  time  have  a  much  larger  passenger 
mileage  at  cheap  ticket  rates  than  at  the  ordinary  fares. 
Doubtless  the  earnings  from  the  ordinary  tickets  are 
still  greater  than  the  earnings  from  cheap  tickets,  but 
when  allowance  is  made  for  the  very  low  mileage  rates 
at  which  the  cheap  ticket  traffic  is  carried,  it  is  evident 
that  the  bulk  of  the  passenger  traffic  of  this  country  is 
carried  at  other  than  ordinary  fares." 

In  plain  English  our  railway  managers  have  landed 
us  completely  in  the  dark  as  to  the  passenger  traffic  from 
which  nearly  one-half  of  our  railway  revenue  is  derived. 
They  have  mystified  us  as  to  the  principles,  if  any,  on 
which  that  traffic  is  being  conducted.  If  they  know 
themselves  they  take  care  not  to  explain  it  to  their  share- 
holders. All  the  shareholders  can  find  out  is  that  every 
year  better  service  is  being  given  to  the  public  for  less 
money  .^     Whether  this  poficy  pays  or  does  not  pay  we 

1  This  year  (1913)  slight  additions  are  being  made  to  some  of  the 
cheap  trip  fares. 


THE  PASSENGER  SERVICE  136 

have  no  means  of  finding  out.  Railway  chairmen  assure 
us  that  it  does  pay,  but  they  do  not  see  that  they  are  trying 
to  run  two  contradictory  systems  side  by  side.  If  their 
cheap  trip  poHcy  be  sound,  then  their  regular  train  service 
must  be  unsound.  If  full  trains  at  low  fares  be  the  true 
poUcy,  why  persist  in  running  half -empty  trains  at  high 
fares  ?  If  one  be  right  the  other  must  be  wrong,  and  it 
matters  little  to  the  shareholders  which  of  them  happens 
to  be  right.  What  does  matter  is  that,  having  ascertained 
which  is  the  right  one,  we  should  whole-heartedly  adopt 
that  policy  and  renoimce  the  other.    We  cannot  have  both. 

There  are  three  classes  of  travellers  for  whom  the 
fashionable  railway  manager  specially  caters — ^the  cheap 
tripper,  the  summer  tourist  and  the  Pullman  car  sybarite. 
We  have  seen  how  far  he  is  prepared  to  go  in  cutting  rates 
for  the  crowd.  His  homage  to  the  summer  tourist  takes 
the  form  of  non-stop  expresses.  As  soon  as  the  season 
begins  these  are  let  loose  all  over  the  three  kingdoms. 
Every  hoHday  resort  from  Brighton  to  Oban  is  provided 
with  a  daily  service  of  them.  The  long  distances  they 
cover  without  a  stop,  the  wild  speeds  at  which  they  nm, 
and  the  luxury  with  which  they  are  fitted  up  are  duly 
proclaimed  in  all  manner  of  advertisements.  So  vigor- 
ously and  lavishly  are  they  boomed  that  it  would  be  a 
wonder  if  they  did  not  attract  a  good  many  passengers. 
They  are  not  always  crowded,  however,  and  in  wet 
summers  like  that  of  1912  they  must  have  some  poor  days. 
But  whether  they  run  full  or  empty  a  heavy  score  of 
working  expenses  will  always  be  mounting  up  against  them. 

If  these  tourist  expresses  were  put  on  in  moderate 
numbers  there  might  not  be  very  great  objection  to  them. 
But  they  are  crowded  in  between  the  ordinary  trains 
so  thickly  that  the  whole  service  is  liable  to  be  thrown 
out  of  gear,  and  delays  become  inevitable,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  risk  of  bad  accidents.  Mr.  H.  G.  Archer,  who 
makes  a  speciality  of  this  curious  branch  of  railway 
statistics,  frequently  remarks  on  the  rapid  multiplication 
of  summer  tourist  expresses.  In  noticing  the  last  addi- 
tion he  said  that  "  a  truly  amazing  grand  total  has  been 
reached.'*    He  also  commented  ironically  on  the  fact 


136 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


of  the  co-operative  movement  having  had  no  apparent 
effect  in  restricting  the  tourist  programmes  of  any  of  the 
companies.  "  After  all  the  talk,"  he  says,  "  about  closer 
relations  between  certain  organisations  with  a  view  to 
greater  economy,  the  new  time  books  reveal  that  while 
they  have  conferred  a  distinct  boon  by  making  return 
tickets  available  by  either  route,  they  have  refrained  from 
the  experiment  of  making  one  tourist  train  do  the  work 
of  two  or  three." 

In  order  to  give  the  reader  some  idea  of  the  extrava- 
gance of  these  non-stop  runs,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
present  a  list  of  the  most  remarkable  ones,  giving  the 
times  they  occupy — 


MUes. 

Minutes. 

Euston  to  Warrington    .     .     . 

182i 

201 

Euston  to  Stockton 

177i 

198 

Euston  to  Liverpool 

192 

208 

Paddington  to  Exeter    . 

173J 

180 

King's  Cross  to  Wakefield 

176| 

189 

Cheadle  to  St.  Pancras   . 

18U 

206 

Waterloo  to  Exeter  .      . 

171 

194 

Waterloo  to  Plymouth    . 

230 

287 

Paddington  to  Penzance 

306 

396 

London  has  no  longer  a  monopoly  of  these  swagger 
trains.  A  later  development  of  summer  tourist  enter- 
prise is  a  series  of  cross-country  expresses  which  bring 
most  of  the  leading  provincial  cities  into  direct  connection 
with  each  other. 

In  the  season  the  Great  Western  puts  on  a  direct  express 
between  Birmingham  and  Penzance  which  does  the 
distance  in  8 J  hours.  In  the  opposite  direction  a  through 
train  is  run  from  Cardiff  over  the  London  and  North- 
western and  Great  Eastern  lines  to  Yarmouth.  Two 
or  three  times  a  day  through  trains  can  be  seen  arriving 
at  Brighton  from  Manchester  and  Liverpool.  The  South 
Coast  has  now  a  regular  service  of  expresses  to  Bath  and 
Bristol.  There  is,  in  short,  abundant  evidence  that  Sir 
Samuel  Fay  was  not  over-praising  himself  and  his  brother 
managers  when  he  thus  eulogised  their  endeavours  to 


THE  PASSENGER  SERVICE  137 

place  all  parts  of  the  United  Kingdom  in  direct  railway 
communication — 

"  The  companies  themselves  have  of  their  own  motion 
established  through  facilities,  through  passenger  and  goods 
trains,  east,  west,  north  and  south,  through  rates  and 
fares  applicable  generally  by  all  routes  not  unduly  cir- 
cuitous. Through  trains  run  not  only  to  and  from  the 
metropolis  and  distant  parts  of  the  country,  but  between 
Newcastle  and  South  Wales,  from  Manchester  to  Dover, 
between  York,  Oxford,  Southampton  and  Bournemouth, 
from  Liverpool  and  Manchester  through  Lincoln  to 
Norwich  and  Yarmouth,  from  the  North-Eastern  district 
to  Bristol,  Exeter,  Plymouth  and  Kingswear.  Companies 
without  the  advantage  of  Hues  to  Scotland,  Ireland,  the 
North-Eastern  district  or  Lancashire  and  Cumberland 
canvass  for  traffic  at  equal  rates  for  the  southern,  eastern 
and  western  counties  as  well  as  London ;  e.  g,  the  Great 
Northern,  Great  Eastern  and  Great  Central  compete  with 
companies  having  direct  lines  to  Scotland  or  boats  to 
Ireland,  and  thus  our  islands  are  very  largely  open  to  the 
influence  of  the  facilities  offered  by  each  of  the  large 
companies  in  competition  one  with  another.  "  ^ 

It  will  be  readily  admitted  that  the  trader,  the  tourist 
and  the  cheap  tripper  have  been  generously  provided  for 
in  these  train  arrangements,  but  what  of  the  shareholder 
who  has  to  bear  all  the  financial  risks  ?  Is  he  to  be  the 
only  person  not  worth  considering  in  connection  with 
them  ?  Should  he  be  left  entirely  in  the  dark  as  to  the 
effect  they  may  have  on  his  interests  ? 

Another  vexed  question  on  which  he  may  fairly  claim 
some  enlightenment  is  the  first-class  carriages,  which  add 
so  little  to  train  receipts  and  so  much  to  their  expenses. 
The  first-class  passenger  is  a  child  of  luxury  who,  however 
costly  he  may  be  to  himself,  costs  the  railway  companies 
a  great  deal  more.  At  least  one  general  manager  has  the 
grace  to  acknowledge  that  he  is  a  pampered  idol.  Mr. 
Butterworth  of  the  North-Eastern  lately  observed — 

"It  is  difficult  to   believe  that  the  luxurious  night 
travelling  which  is  to  be  found  to-day  on  our  main  trunk 
1  Report  of  Board  of  Trade  Conference,  1909. 


138  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

lines,  and  the  services  of  goods  trains  which  are  run 
between  large  towns  at  a  speed  little  short  of  that  of 
passenger  trains,  would  have  come  into  existence  except 
under  the  stress  of  competition,  which  has  induced  first 
one  company  and  then  another  to  *  go  one  better  '  than 
its  neighbour  in  the  hope  of  gaining  some  temporary 
advantage,  or  at  any  rate  of  obliging  an  older  established 
rival  to  recognise  its  existence." 

The  latest  word  in  the  policy  of  "  going  one  better  " 
than  your  neighbours  is  Fishguard.  It  raises  not  one 
but  many  disputable  questions  of  railway  policy.  Many 
millions  of  Great  Western  capital  have  been  spent  there, 
the  shareholders  will  probably  never  learn  how  much. 
They  can,  however,  make  their  own  estimate  of  it,  and 
taking  note  of  what  they  have  got  for  it  in  the  shape  of 
new  traffic,  they  may  judge  whether  or  not  it  has  been 
well-spent  money.  But  that  is  not  the  whole  point. 
Not  merely  should  the  money  have  been  remuneratively 
spent,  but  the  object  to  which  it  was  applied  should  have 
been  what  the  Great  Western  Railway  most  needed  at 
that  particular  time. 

No  competent  and  independent  judge  will,  I  think, 
say  that  of  the  Fishguard  enterprise.  A  new  harbour 
which  requires  to  hold  out  all  manner  of  baits  and  tempta- 
tions to  shipowners  in  order  to  attract  business  cannot  be 
said  to  be  urgently  needed.  A  passenger  service  which 
has  to  begin  by  overcoming  an  endless  succession  of 
natural  difficulties,  and  which  even  then  has  to  be  operated 
in  the  most  expensive  way,  has  little  hope  of  developing 
into  a  popular  and  profitable  one.  Harbours  like  Fish- 
guard and  Heysham  are  exotics,  forced  growths.  They 
have  diverted  millions  of  money  which  might  have  been 
better  employed  in  improving  the  main  line,  reducing 
working  expenses,  increasing  train  loads,  and  thereby 
enabling  the  company  to  lower  freight  rates. 

The  parrot  cry  of  "  giving  the  public  greater  facihties  " 
has  led  to  many  mistakes  in  British  railway  poUcy.  It 
has  caused  money  to  be  spent,  as  Mr.  Butterworth 
pointed  out,  in  luxuries  and  fineries  which  might  have 
been  easily  dispensed  with.     Had  our  railway  managers, 


THE  PASSENGER  SERVICE  139 

instead  of  wasting  their  time  on  problems  of  speed,  long 
runs  and  drawing-room  cars  devoted  more  of  it  to  the 
economical  movement  of  goods,  they  might  to-day  have 
been  thinking  about  reducing  instead  of  raising  their 
freight  rates.  Cheap  trains  are  far  more  needed  for 
products  than  for  producers. 


CHAPTER  XII 

TERMINALS  AND  TERMINAL  CHARGES 

Our  railway  terminology  is  even  more  bewildering 
than  the  operations  it  professes  to  distinguish  from  each 
other.  It  bristles  with  definitions  which  do  not  define, 
and  with  explanations  which  do  not  explain.  The  key- 
word itself — railway — is  differently  described  in  nearly 
every  text-book.  In  the  statute  book  it  is  not  expressly 
recognised  at  all.  Railways  are  spoken  of  there  as 
"  common  carriers,"  and  legally  speaking  there  is  no 
difference  between  them  and  their  humble  predecessors 
of  the  turnpike  road.  But  in  new  countries  like  the 
United  States,  where  the  railway  is  often  the  only  public 
carrier  they  have  ever  known,  it  is  treated  in  its  own 
proper  character. 

From  the  term  "  railway  "  many  distinctive  offshoots 
have  in  a  long  course  of  evolution  sprung  up.  Or  rather 
they  have  gathered  round  it  like  twigs  and  branches. 
Conspicuous  among  these  is  the  puzzling  word  "  ter- 
minal." Where  it  came  from,  who  invented  it,  and  when 
it  was  first  used  are  questions  which  have  all  passed  into 
the  dim  ages.  As  far  as  I  can  trace,  it  made  its  first 
appearance  as  a  charge  for  the  use  of  the  station.  This 
was  in  the  Lancaster  and  Carlisle  Act  of  1844,  one  of  the 
only  two  that  specifically  authorised  station  charges.  The 
other  was  the  North  Staffordshire  Act  passed  in  1880. 
Several  early  Acts  authorise  reasonable  charges  for 
loading  and  unloading,  which  doubtless  was  the  original 
orm  assumed  by  terminals. 

At  the  outset  traders  found  their  own  vehicles,  and 
then  they  would  naturally  do  their  own  loading  and 
unloading.     The   next   evolutionary   step    was    for   the 

140 


TERMINALS  AND  TERMINAL  CHARGES     141 

railways  to  provide  the  vehicles,  the  traders  continuing 
to  load  and  unload  them.  At  the  third  stage  the  railway 
would  undertake  the  loading  and  unloading  and  make  a 
special  charge  for  them.  As  the  traffic  increased  and 
developed  extra  facilities  and  means  of  protection  would 
be  found  necessary.  The  railway  would  supply  them, 
and  every  time  would  add  a  new  item  to  the  growing 
catalogue  of  its  terminals.  In  course  of  time  platforms 
for  handling  goods,  sheds,  sidings,  turn-tables,  cranes, 
tarpaulins  and  all  the  accessories  of  a  shunting  yard  would 
have  to  be  piled  on.  The  final  item  added  to  the  list 
is  said  to  have  been  the  cost  of  the  land  occupied  by  the 
terminals. 

All  these  extras  have  now  been  scientifically  figured 
out,  and  enter  into  the  calculation  of  every  goods  rate, 
large  or  small.  Any  one  who  wishes  to  see  how  in- 
geniously they  have  been  built  up  should  read  a  remark- 
able exposition  of  them  in  a  book  published  a  few  years 
ago  under  the  title  of  Railway  Rates,  by  the  late  Joseph 
Horrocks.  The  author  is  said  to  have  devoted  many 
years  of  his  life  to  elaborating  it  and  reducing  it  to  a 
system  so  perfect  that  every  rate  would  be  made  up  of 
its  proper  number  of  component  elements.  The  theory 
of  the  book  is  that  the  transport  of  goods  consists  of  a 
series  of  services,  some  important  and  others  minute, 
each  of  which  can  be  separately  assessed  and  charged  up. 
How  severely  logical  it  is  may  be  gathered  from  the 
opening  paragraph — 

**  The  act  of  conveying  a  train  consisting  of  engine, 
tender,  brake  van  and  loaded  or  empty  wagons  from  one 
station  on  a  railway  to  another  station,  respectively  called 
the  first  and  second  terminal  stations,  comprehends  three 
inter-terminal  services,  namely,  railage,  haulage  and 
truckage." 

"  Railage  "  is  explained  to  be  the  use  of  a  section  of  the 
railway ;  "  haulage  "  is  the  services  of  the  engine  and  train- 
men ;  "truckage"  the  use  of  the  vehicles  with  their 
tarpaulins  and  other  accessories.  Two  distinct  kinds  of 
service  are  said  to  be  rendered  by  a  goods  train  in  transit 
from  one  terminal  to  another.     One  is  the  service  in  chief 


142  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

and  the  other  is  supplementary  or  incidental.  Apparently 
as  an  excuse  for  extra  charges,  the  author  remarks  in 
passing  :  "  Probably  only  seven  or  eight  out  of  every  ten 
hours  of  employment  are  devoted  by  the  staff  of  a  train 
to  the  performance  of  main  services  or  services  that  can 
be  professedly  charged  for."  On  the  theory  that  every 
minute  of  railway  time  should  be  accounted  for,  the 
supplementary  charges  have  been  devised  and  elaborated. 

*'  Terminals  "  of  course  afford  a  delightful  field  for  the 
exercise  of  this  kind  of  analytic  skill,  which  in  theory  is 
admirable,  however  little  traders  may  appreciate  it  in 
practice.  Railage,  haulage  and  truckage  have  each  its 
corresponding  terminal  service.  *'  The  terminal  service 
of  railage  consists  in  the  use  at  a  terminal  station  of 
sidings  in  which  loaded  or  empty  wagons  may  stand,  and 
in  which  they  may  be  moved  or  marshalled  by  locomotives 
or  other  power  as  circumstances  require.  It  includes  the 
use  of  the  adjacent  main  line  when  necessary  in  carrying 
out  shunting  operations  and  the  consequent  employment 
of  signal-men.  It  embraces  the  use  of  covered  and  un- 
covered platforms,  wharves  and  other  suitable  places  where 
goods  either  already  conveyed  or  intended  to  be  conveyed 
may  be  temporarily  deposited  for  the  railway  company's 
convenience,  and  also  the  use  of  the  land  giving  access  to 
the  sidings." 

Mr.  Horrocks  left  nothing  out,  and  for  that  the  railway 
companies  should  be  much  indebted  to  him.  His  defini- 
tion of  terminal  haulage  is  shorter  and  less  formidable 
than  that  of  railage.  "  The  terminal  service  of  haulage 
comprises  the  expenditure  of  power,  the  use  of  machinery 
and  the  employment  of  individuals  to  control  the  power 
and  machinery  in  moving  loaded  or  empty  wagons  in  a 
terminal  station  from  one  position  in  the  sidings  to  another 
as  may  be  required." 

The  third  of  the  terminal  services,  "  truckage,"  emerges 
from  the  skilful  analysis  of  Mr.  Horrocks  in  this  shape  : 
"  The  terminal  service  of  truckage  consists  in  the  use  at  a 
terminal  station  of  wagons,  including  their  accessories, 
either  loaded,  waiting  to  be  dispatched  or  discharged,  or 
empty,  waiting  to  be  placed  in  position  for  loading  or 


TERMINALS  AND  TERMINAL  CHARGES     143 

dispatch  as  the  case  may  be.  The  use  of  tarpauUns  in 
protecting  damageable  goods  from  the  weather,  and  the 
use  of  sheds  with  the  same  object  during  the  processes  of 
loading  and  unloading,  must  be  joined  to  that  of  wagons." 
Mr.  Hor rocks  carries  his  scientific  analysis  of  station 
expenses  even  farther  than  terminals.  He  defines  as 
legitimate  subjects  of  charge  the  corresponding  services 
performed  at  junctions  and  "  inter  junctions,"  the  latter 
term  being  applied  to  junctions  between  two  railways. 

Mr.  Horrocks  believed  in  the  possibility  of  arriving  at 
an  equation  of  the  costs  of  all  these  various  terminal 
services,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  any  railway  has  yet 
attempted  to  put  his  method  into  operation.  Managers 
may  bie  satisfied  for  the  present  with  the  theoretical  enjoy- 
ment of  it.  He  has  further  provided  them  with  formulsB 
for  calculating  some  of  the  principal  items  of  terminal 
expenditures.  The  railway  itself,  with  its  signalling 
apparatus  and  other  appurtenances,  is  to  be  put  down  at 
so  much  per  mile,  and  the  land  occupied  by  sidings,  turn- 
tables, structures,  wharves,  roadways,  etc.,  at  so  much  per 
square  yard ;  cranes  and  other  machinery  at  average  cost 
per  unit,  locomotives,  tenders,  brake  vans  and  wagons 
at  average  cost  per  ton ;  manual-power  and  horse-power 
at  average  cost  per  hour;  delay  of  wagons  at  average 
length  of  time  per  wagon. 

When  all  these  averages  have  been  laboriously  calculated 
they  are  to  be  used  as  may  be  necessary,  "  in  order  to 
arrive  at  suitable  sums,  including  profity  to  be  employed 
as  factors  with  actual  weights  of  loads,  average  weights 
of  wagons  and  instruments  of  power,  and  with  distances, 
to  compute  rates  with  inter-terminal  services  constituting 
conveyance,  and  with  actual  weights  of  loads  and  average 
weights  of  wagons  to  compute  charges  for  terminal, 
junctional  and  inter  junctional  services  according  to  the 
average  periods  of  time  during  which  they  are  respectively 
performed.'* 

An  exceptional  and  it  may  almost  be  feared  an  im- 
possible supply  of  mathematical  genius  would  be  reqiiired 
to  frame  a  tariff  of  terminal  charges  on  such  a  highly 
scientific  basis  as  that.     The  mere  suggestion  of  it  would 


144  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

be  too  much  for  the  average  consignee,  but  it  may  be 
good  for  him  to  be  shown  that  there  is  a  side  to  the  question 
absolutely  different  from  his  own.  It  may  also  be  useful 
for  the  public  to  see  that  haulage  is  by  no  means  the  chief 
part  of  the  service  rendered  by  a  railway  in  the  transport 
of  goods.  Nor  is  it  necessarily  the  most  expensive  part. 
Handling  at  terminal  points  may  cost  the  railway  more 
than  the  transportation  from  point  to  point.  This 
unpleasant  discovery  appears  to  have  been  made  by 
railway  managers  at  a  comparatively  early  period,  for 
there  is  evidence  of  it  in  Dr.  Lardner's  text-book.  But  it 
took  them  many  years  to  impress  it  sufficiently  on  Parlia- 
ment to  induce  that  body  to  expressly  authorise  terminal 
charges.  As  has  been  already  noted,  a  charge  for  the  use 
of  stations  was  admitted  as  early  as  1844,  and  that  in 
reality  conceded  the  terminal  principle. 

Dr.  Lardner,  with  characteristic  foresight,  warned  the 
railway  officials  of  his  day  that  they  were  making  a  great 
mistake  in  forcing  their  passenger  traffic  at  the  expense 
of  their  goods  traffic.  He  predicted  truly  that  of  the  two 
there  was  more  money  in  goods  if  equal  attention  was 
bestowed  on  them. 

"  The  transport  of  goods,  though  presenting  less  striking 
phenomena  (than  '  the  brilliant  and  imexpected  results 
of  the  passenger  traffic  '),  is  attended  with  not  less  benefit 
yj  to  the  country,  and  may  soon,  if  duly  cultivated,  become 
the  source  of  more  permanent  and  extensive  profits  to  the 
railway  establishments.  But  to  realise  these  it  will  be 
J?  necessary  that  this  branch  of  the  business  should  receive 
a  more  profoimd  study  on  the  part  of  railway  managers 
than  has  hitherto  been  bestowed  upon  it."  ^ 

More  than  once  he  returns  to  this  interesting  point,  and 

farther  on  in  the  same  chapter  he  adds  :  *'  The  transport 

of  goods  is  subject  to  more  various  and  difficult  conditions 

than  that  of  passengers.    If  frequency  of  departure  and 

extreme  speed  are  not  so  imperatively  demanded  for  it, 

P  the  adjustment  of  the  tariff  so  as  to  render  the  transport 

^'     compatible  with  the  commercial  conditions  of  the  local 

markets  is  a  subject  out  of  which  arise  numerous  and 

*  Dr.  Lardner's  Railway  Economy,  p.  200. 


TERMINALS  AND  TERMINAL  CHARGES     145 

difficult  questions  for  solution.  On  the  solution  of  these 
questions,  and  on  the  due  graduation  of  the  goods  tarifE, 
will  depend  altogether  the  extent  and  the  success  of  this 
important  branch  of  railway  business."  ^ 

Many  years  of  labour  and  controversy  had  to  be  spent 
on  the  elaboration  of  an  ideal  goods  tariff  before  it 
assumed  a  defensible  form.  One  of  the  chief  stumbling- 
blocks  in  the  way  was  the  question  of  terminal  charges. 
They  were  a  much  more  contentious  subject  than  the 
haulage  rates,  which  might  with  some  give  and  take  on 
the  part  of  railways  and  traders  have  been  graduated  to 
the  satisfaction  of  both  parties.  But  terminals  were  an 
ever  growing  complication.  They  had  only  a  quasi -legal 
authority,  a  few  companies  having  them  explicitly  con« 
ceded  in  their  Acts,  while  others  had  to  assume  that  they 
were  implied  if  not  actually  expressed.  In  the  end 
Parliament  was  virtually  compelled  to  recognise  them  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  control  over  their  exercise. 

The  Joint  Committee  of  1873  had  the  question  first 
definitely  brought  before  it,  and  its  decision  upon  it  was 
ambiguous.  It  was  to  the  effect  that  if  a  separate  charge 
for  terminals  was  allowed,  it  should  be  subjected  to  limita- 
tions the  same  as  the  principal  charge  for  conveyance. 
In  the  words  of  the  Committee — 

"  But  where  it  is  a  separate  charge  it  seems  obvious 
that  if  the  services  thus  charged  for  are  as  necessary  and 
as  general  as  the  actual  carriage  of  the  goods,  there  is  just 
as  much  reason  for  imposing  a  legal  maximum  in  the  one 
case  as  in  the  other.  And  such  a  maximum  would  no 
doubt  have  been  imposed  in  the  earlier  Acts  if  it  had  been 
foreseen  that  each  company  would  *  do  all  the  carrying 
on  its  own  line.'  Whether  any  such  maximum  should 
now  be  imposed  is  a  different  question." 

During  the  next  eight  or  nine  years  opinion  was  slowly 
ripening  on  the  vexed  question  of  terminals,  and  the  Rail- 
way Rates  Committee  of  1881-82  advanced  a  stage  beyond 
the  Joint  Committee  of  1873.   Inter  alia  it  recommended— 

"  That  there  should  be  adopted  over  the  whole  railway 
system  one  uniform  classification  of  goods. 

1  Dr.  Lardner's  Railway  Economy,  p.  203. 


14a  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

That  terminal  charges  should  be  recognised,  but 
be  subject  to  publication,  and  in  case  of  challenge  to 
sanction  by  the  Railway  Commissioners." 

Another  seven  years  of  rapid  and  not  always  peaceful 
evolution  brought  a  certain  amount  of  order  out  of  chaos. 
The  Select  Committee  of  1888  effected  two  great  im- 
provements in  our  railway  law.  It  established  the  prin- 
eiple  of  uniform  classification,  and  definitely  recognised 
the  right  of  the  railway  companies  to  charge  separately 
for  terminals.     The  clause  in  question  said — 

"  Your  Committee,  therefore,  are  of  opinion  that  the 
right  of  Railway  Companies  to  charge  for  '  station  ter- 
minals '  should  be  recognised  by  Parliament,  so  as  to 
provide  by  a  general  Act  that  the  sums  which  they  claim 
a  right  to  demand  for  terminals  of  any  kind  at  each 
station  shall  be  clearly  entered  in  the  rate -book  or  other- 
wise publicly  notified  at  such  station,  so  that  it  may  be 
open  to  anybody  at  any  time  to  challenge  before  the 
Railway  Commissioners  under  section  15  of  the  Railways 
and  Canals  Traffic  Act  of  1873  the  reasonableness  of  such 
sums." 

Soon  after  this  we  find  terminal  charges  in  full  opera- 
tion, and  their  most  strenuous  defender  wiU  have  to 
admit  their  oppressive  character.  In  the  mildest  examples 
they  amounted  to  double  or  treble  the  cost  of  haulage, 
and  in  bad  cases  they  might  be  six  or  seven  times  as 
heavy.  So  friendly  a  critic  as  Mr.  W.  M.  Acworth  bears 
testimony  to  this  anomalous  result.  In  reply  to  the 
accusation  often  brought  against  them  of  being  arbitrary 
and  excessive,  and  of  yielding  a  large  profit  to  the  rail- 
ways, he  wrote  in  his  Elements  of  Railway  Economics 
(p.  120)- 

"  The  companies  as  between  themselves — when  there- 
fore they  have  no  motive  for  exaggerating — reckon  that 
terminal  service,  including  collection  and  delivery,  costs 
on  the  average  8s.  Qd,  per  ton  in  London,  4s.  per  ton 
elsewhere.  In  other  words,  if  a  ton  of  goods  is  sent  from 
London  by  the  Great  Eastern  to  Halstead  on  the  Colne 
Valley  Railway,  a  distance  of  66  miles,  supposing  the 
rate  charged  to  be  15s.,  then  the  Great  Eastern  Company 


TERMINALS  AND  TERMINAL  CHARGES     147 

will  take  out  of  the  1 5s.,  Ss.  6d.  for  terminal  in  London, 
the  small  company  4^.  for  terminal  at  Halstead.  There 
remains  25.  6d,  as  the  sum  attributable  to  conveyance 
proper,  and  this  will  be  divided  between  the  two  companies 
in  proportion  to  mileage." 

Observe  the  very  small  part  that  the  actual  haulage 
of  the  goods  plays  in  the  cost  of  their  conveyance.  Col- 
lecting, delivering  and  station  service  at  each  end  absorb 
five-sixths  of  the  whole  rate.  Surely  this  is  where  the 
economists  and  the  advocates  of  more  efficient  railway 
methods  ought  to  begin.  A  mere  trifle  can  be  saved 
off  the  haulage  of  a  ton  of  goods  66  miles  for  2^.  6d. 
compared  with  what  might  be  saved  off  the  12*.  6d.  per 
ton  that  is  frittered  away  in  collecting  it,  handling  it  at 
two  stations,  and  passing  it  on  to  its  destination. 

At  first  blush  it  may  seem  odd  that  greater  outcry 
should  have  been  raised  against  the  railway  companies 
on  account  of  terminals  and  other  incidental  charges  than 
against  the  haulage  rates  themselves.  These  are  seldom 
causes  of  conaplaint,  while  terminals  are  endless  sources 
of  dispute.  The  explanation  which  has  been  given  of 
their  intricate  and  artificial  character  may  to  a  large 
extent  account  for  that.  It  may  also  help  to  explain  the 
alleged  excess  of  British  railway  rates  over  those  of 
certain  foreign  countries,  notably  Germany  and  the 
United  States.  It  is  not  the  haulage  rate  proper  that  is 
excessive  on  British  railways  so  much  as  the  extra 
services  which  accompany  it,  and  from  which  foreign 
railways  are  largely  free. 

The  American  railways  neither  collect  nor  deliver  goods, 
They  do  not,  in  fact,  trouble  themselves  with  parcel 
traffic  at  all.  They  leave  that  to  the  Express  Companies, 
which  pay  them  mileage  for  every  car  they  run  over  their 
roads.  Even  the  heavy  traffic  is  to  a  large  extent  in  the 
hands  of  Express  lines  which  run  over  several  systems. 
In  other  words,  much  of  the  actual  business  of  American 
railroads  is  farmed  out  to  lesser  companies,  which  find 
their  own  equipment  and  their  own  terminals.  This 
greatly  reduces  the  importance  of  the  terminal  question 
on    American  roads.      But   even  if    no    such    unequal 


148  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

conditions  obtained,  the  comparison  would  still  be  very 
unequal. 

On  American  railways  long  hauls  are  combined  with 
comparatively  cheap  terminals,  while  on  British  railways 
the  hauls  are  short  and  the  terminals  costly.  The 
relative  proportion  of  terminal  to  haulage  is  quite  different 
in  the  two  cases.  Hence  the  fact  that  terminals  are  a 
peculiarly  British  grievance,  and  are  little  heard  of  in 
the  United  States.  In  some  reports  of  State  Railroad 
Commissioners  the  name  seldom  occurs.  Neither  are 
cabalistic  phrases  like  "  collection  and  delivery  rates  "  to 
be  met  with.  These  include  terminal  charges,  and  con- 
sequently appear  high  until  it  is  understood  that  they 
represent  combined  rates  for  several  distinct  services. 
Such  a  thing  as  railage  pure  and  simple  is  unknown  to 
our  railway-men.  The  very  idea  of  it  has  died  out  from 
amongst  them.  It  has  been  smothered  by  an  accumula- 
tion of  terminal  and  other  extra  charges  which  are  the 
worst  enemies  of  efficient  and  economical  working. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE   ROLLING   STOCK 

Hitherto  rolling  stock  has  been  regarded  as  a  secondary 
factor  in  railway  economics,  but  it  has  of  late  years  risen 
greatly  in  importance.  For  the  goods  manager  it  is  the 
most  difficult  problem  he  has  to  face,  and  it  demands 
more  constant  attention  than  any  other.  The  permanent 
way,  when  it  has  been  properly  laid,  requires  only  to  be 
carefully  looked  after  and  well  maintained.  With  a 
competent  engineering  staff  that  is  a  matter  of  routine. 
It  need  not  trouble  the  management  a  great  deal  imless 
when  extensive  alterations  or  improvements  are  under 
consideration.  But  the  rolling  stock  is  a  subject  of 
ceaseless  anxiety.  It  affects  every  movement  of  traffic, 
whether  goods  or  passengers.  The  safety  of  every  train 
and  of  every  point  on  the  line  depends  upon  it.  A 
defective  wheel  or  axle  escaping  detection  may  cause  a 
disastrous  and  costly  accident.  A  faulty  distribution  of 
locomotives  may  hamper  the  working  of  many  miles  of 
line.  A  scarcity  of  trucks  or  wagons  at  an  important 
station  may  delay  the  regular  traffic  greatly,  and  at  the 
same  time  increase  the  cost  of  working. 

There  is  probably  more  money  to  be  saved  or  wasted 
in  connection  with  the  rolling  stock  than  in  any  other 
department.  The  maintenance  of  permanent  way  cannot 
differ  widely  on  lines  of  a  similar  class,  but  the  expenditure 
on  rolling  stock  in  a  given  year  may  be  twice  as  much 
on  one  line  as  on  another.  These  extreme  differences 
may  not  be  due  altogether  to  superior  or  inferior  manage- 
ment. There  are  many  other  factors  which  may  control 
them — ^the  physical  character  of  the  line,  the  nature  of 

149 


150  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

the  traffic,  the  financial  condition  of  the  company,  and  so 
forth. 

In  this  respect  the  railway  systems  of  foreign  countries 
exhibit  striking  contrasts  to  our  own.  As  yet  railway 
operations  have  been  very  little  studied  from  the  rolling 
stock  point  of  view.  The  tests  which  it  furnishes  have 
been  imperfectly  appreciated,  and  it  will  be  our  aim 
here  to  make  them  better  understood.  When  our  rail- 
way authorities  are  being  sweepingly  condemned  for 
their  extravagance  the  charge  is  seldom  followed  up  by 
detailed  proof.  Those  who  most  freely  make  it  are  not 
always  best  qualified  to  prove  it.  But  if  a  competent 
critic  were  to  start  looking  for  concrete  examples,  he 
might  not  find  many  in  the  permanent  way  or  in  the 
general  traffic  department.  His  search  is  much  more 
likely  to  be  rewarded  in  the  history  of  the  rolling  stock. 

This  branch  of  the  service  when  thoroughly  examined 
is  likely  to  prove  one  of  the  weakest.  A  variety  of  causes 
have  contributed  to  render  it  wasteful  and  extravagant. 
The  worst  of  these  was  the  foolish  policy  of  "  competition 
in  public  facilities,"  which  for  many  years  crowded  our 
railways  with  superfluous  trains  and  their  sidings  with 
empty  wagons.  Agents  touting  for  traffic  promised 
traders  a  prompt  and  unstinted  supply  of  trucks,  exemp- 
tion from  demurrage  and  other  privileges,  all  tending 
to  lock  up  rolling  stock.  In  course  of  time  the  accumu- 
lation of  idle  wagons,  not  only  earning  nothing  but  costing 
some  companies  thousands  of  pounds  a  year  to  maintain, 
became  a  scandal  too  great  to  be  winked  at. 

The  labour  unrest  of  1911-12  had  a  redeeming  feature 
in  so  far  as  it  called  pubUc  attention  to  various  unjust 
burdens  which  the  railways  had  hitherto  endured  volun- 
tarily. Among  them  was  the  excessive  amoimt  of  free 
use  of  railway  rolling  stock  which  was  claimed  by  whole- 
sale traders.  Of  course  it  is  only  the  big  shippers  who 
enjoy  such  privileges.  The  small  men  have  to  "  toe  the 
line  "  and  pay  demurrage  from  the  moment  when  it 
becomes  chargeable.  If  their  present  fit  of  zeal  should 
last  long  the  railways  will  deal  more  fairly  in  future  with 
their  various  classes   of  customers,,  but  the   wholesale 


THE  ROLLING  STOCK  161 

traders  are  not  likely  to  let  go  their  demurrage  privileges 
without  a  struggle.  If  they  can  continue  their  selmh 
poUcy  of  playing  off  the  railways  against  each  other,  the 
demurrage  question  may  not  be  finally  settled  for  a  long 
while  yet.  So  long  as  it  remains  open  its  natural  effects 
will  be  seen  in  excessive  outfits  of  rolling  stock  and 
corresponding  cost  of  maintenance. 

Of  course  railway  managers  do  not  admit  the  alleged 
superabimdance  of  rolling  stock.  At  present  they  will 
go  farther  and  assert  the  contrary:  that  rolling  stock, 
instead  of  being  in  excess,  is  suffering  from  a  severe  short- 
age. This,  in  fact,  was  assigned  as  one  of  the  reasons  for 
more  strictly  enforcing  the  demurrage  rates.  But  oddly 
enough,  both  versions  may  be  true.  Up-to-date  vehicles 
are  never  too  plentiful,  even  on  the  best  lines,  and  out-of- 
date  ones  are  never  very  scarce.  In  this  case  there  is 
reason  to  fear  that  any  superabundance  there  may  be  is 
among  the  latter  class.  Thousands  of  trucks  and  wagons 
may  be  resting  in  sidings  which  should  have  gone  long 
ago  to  the  scrap-heap.  Thousands  more  may  be  running 
at  a  loss,  and  would  be  willingly  replaced  if  the  necessary 
capital  could  be  raised  without  inconvenient  questions. 
The  average  cost  of  locomotives,  passenger  coaches, 
wagons  and  trucks  might  rise  to  an  alarming  extent  if 
all  the  effete  vehicles  were  to  be  renewed  as  rapidly  as 
they  ought  to  be. 

The  wasteful  and  inefficient  use  of  roUing  stock  was 
not  an  unforeseen  danger.  The  earliest  writers  on  railway 
management  called  special  attention  to  it.  Half-loaded 
wagons  were  already  very  much  in  evidence  even  at 
important  goods  depots  like  Chalk  Farm.  In  1849  the 
number  of  wagons  arriving  and  departing  from  that 
station  was  estimated  to  average  500  eyery  working  day. 
Their  full  load  was  nearly  6  tons,  and  if  all  of  them  had 
been  fully  loaded  the  total  movement  of  goods  would  have 
been  about  3,000  tons  per  day.  But  it  was  found  that  their 
loads  averaged  only  2  J  tons,  and  the  aggregate  movement 
would  therefore  be  only  1,125  tons  per  day.  This  estimate 
was  to  a  certain  extent  confirmed  by  Pickfords'  receipts 
and  deliveries,  which  in  1849  averaged  900  tons  per  day. 


162  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

At  this  time  Pickford  and  Co.  were  the  cartage  agents  for 
the  London  and  North- Western  Company. 

The  above  averages  indicate  that  the  proper  utilisation 
of  rolling  stock  was  already  being  studied  as  a  special 
problem.  It  was  of  course  dealt  with  by  the  father  of 
railway  economics,  who  laid  down  rules  forCkscertaining 
the  average  wagon  loads  and  train  loads  passing  over  a 
given  section  of  line  or  being  handled  at  a  given  station. 
The  nature  of  the  calculation  is  briefly  indicated  thus — 

"  By  comparing  the  movement  of  the  different  classes 
of  traffic  with  the  movement  of  the  various  classes  of 
transport  to  which  they  are  respectively  appropriated, 
we  can  obtain  the  average  load  carried  by  each  vehicle, 
and  by  comparing  them  with  the  movement  of  the  loco- 
motive stock  we  can  obtain  the  average  load  drawn  by 
each  engine.  Data  are  thus  obtained  by  which  numerous 
economical  problems  of  the  highest  importance  can  be 
solved.  It  is  by  these  means  that  we  can  ascertain  the 
extent  to  which  the  moving  stock  of  the  railway  has  been 
utilised." 

In  another  passage  Dr.  Lardner  goes  a  step  farther  and 
foreshadows  statistical  records  very  like  what  the  ton- 
mile  school  are  advocating  to-day.  He  mentions  in- 
cidentally the  data  on  which  they  could  be  based,  namely, 
the  way-bills  which  showed  both  the  weight  and  mileage 
of  each  consignment. 

"If  we  know  the  distance  which  any  class  of  vehicles 
have  travelled  within  the  year,  and  also  know  the  distance 
over  which  each  class  of  objects  of  transport  to  which 
such  vehicles  are  appropriated  have  been  carried,  the 
comparison  will  immediately  supply  the  means  of  ascer- 
taining the  average  load  carried  by  each  vehicle,  and  this 
average  load  is  the  only  exponent  of  the  extent  to  which 
each  class  of  vehicle  has  been  utihsed.  To  accomplish 
this  it  would  be  necessary  to  keep  separate  accoimts  of 
the  traffic  and  of  the  rolling  stock.  In  the  case  of  the 
traffic  its  mileage  can  be  immediately  ascertained  from  the 
record  of  the  receipts,  inasmuch  as  each  sum  reveived  repre- 
sents the  transport  of  a  given  object  to  a  given  distanced*  ^ 
^  Dr.  I.ardner'8  Railway  Economy ^  p  621. 


THE  ROLLING  STOCK  153 

It  is  hardly  to  the  credit  of  our  railway  managers  that 
elementary  questions  like  the  full  loading  of  trains  should 
be  in  almost  as  crude  a  state  to-day  as  they  were  over 
sixty  years  ago.  Since  1849  the  question  has  grown 
immensely  as  regards  size  and  number  of  vehicles,  but 
that  appears  only  to  have  allowed  greater  scope  for  waste. 
Our  railways  are  now  carrying  1,325  million  passengers 
and  523  million  tons  of  goods  annually.  It  is  obvious 
that  an  immense  quantity  of  rolling  stock  must  be  em- 
ployed in  doing  it.  In  1911  there  were  nearly  23,000 
locomotives  in  service  in  the  United  Kingdom.  England 
and  Wales  have  19,472,  Scotland  2,600,  and  Ireland  897. 
Passenger  coaches  and  vans  numbered  about  72,000, 
including  60,107  in  England  and  Wales,  8,549  in  Scotland, 
and  3,269  in  Ireland.  The  goods  and  mineral  wagons  were 
officially  reported  at  767,539,  or  close  on  three-quarters 
of  a  million.  Of  these  six-sevenths  (601,472)  were  owned 
by  the  English  and  Welsh  lines,  and  nearly  one-fifth  by 
the  Scottish  lines  (143,767),  leaving  for  the  Irish  lines  a 
thirty-fifth  part  (22,300). 

Not  until  lately  has  the  importance  of  equipment  as  a 
factor  in  railway  efl&ciency  begun  to  be  thoroughly  appre- 
ciated. Formerly  the  only  tests  of  efficiency  recognised 
by  the  public,  and  even  by  railway  men  themselves, 
were  the  cost  per  mile  of  construction  and  operation. 
So  long  as  these  made  a  respectable  showing,  share- 
holders were  content.  Often  they  did  not  even  pursue 
their  inquiries  so  far,  but  simply  looked  at  the  percentage 
of  working  expenses  to  gross  receipts  :  the  most  deceptive 
basis  of  comparison  that  could  be  imagined.  All  the 
while  much  simpler  and  more  reliable  comparisons  might 
have  been  drawn  from  the  various  classes  of  rolling  stock 
and  the  work  they  performed.  This  applies  to  goods 
wagons  and  passenger  coaches  as  well  as  to  locomotives. 

Prima  facie  the  railway  which  can  get  the  largest 
amount  of  productive  work  out  of  its  rolling  stock  should 
from  all  points  of  view  be  regarded  as  the  most  efficient. 
It  renders  the  best  service  to  its  customers  and  the  pubHc 
as  well  as  to  its  proprietors.  The  data  at  present  available 
for  such  comparisons  is  very  incomplete,  but  under  the 


154 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


new  regime  we  may  look  for  steady  enlargement  and  im- 
provement. The  fuller  returns  which  the  railway  com- 
panies will  have  to  furnish  hereafter  to  their  shareholders 
should  enable  us  to  ascertain  on  which  line  the  best 
results  are  being  obtained  from  each  class  of  rolling 
stock,  from  the  locomotives  down  to  the  coal  wagons. 

This  test  may  be  made  very  elastic  and  comprehensive. 
For  example,  the  average  haulage  of  the  locomotives 
may  be  calculated  by  dividing  the  total  tonnage  of  the 
year  by  the  number  of  engines  in  service.  True,  many 
of  them  may  not  be  engaged  all  the  time  in  hauling  trains. 
A  great  deal  of  subsidiary  work  has  to  be  done,  such  as 
shunting,  marshalling  trucks,  etc.  Failing  any  separate 
details  of  these  auxiliary  services,  we  have  to  assume 
that  on  the  principal  railways  of  the  United  Kingdom 
the  percentage  of  them  is  pretty  uniform.  None  of  them 
need  fear  any  serious  injustice  from  such  an  assumption. 

The  Board  of  Trade  statistics  do  not  distinguish 
minutely  between  the  various  classes  of  vehicles  employed 
in  passenger  traffic  and  those  engaged  in  the  goods  service. 
As  regards  locomotives,  no  division  at  all  is  attempted, 
but  they  are  all  lumped  together.  The  only  distinction 
we  can  venture  upon  here  is  to  divide  them  equally 
between  goods  and  passengers.  For  the  United  Kingdom 
that  gave,  in  1911,  the  following  averages — 

Average  Work  of  Passenger  Vehicles,  1911. 


England  and 
Wales. 

Scotland. 

Ireland. 

Passenger  Locomotives     . 
Passengers  per  Locomotive    . 
Carriages  and  Vans     , 
Passengers  per  Vehicle 

9,736 

122,000 

60,107 

19,760 

1,262 

86,700 

8,649 

12,660 

448 

66,200 

3,269 

9,000 

Average  Work  of  Goods  Vehicles,  1911. 

England  and 
Wales. 

Scotland, 

Ireland. 

Locomotives 

Tons  per  Locomotive  . 
Wagons,  Trucks,  etc.  .      .      . 
Tons  per  Vehicle    .... 

9,736 

46,000 

601,472 

745 

1,262 

64,860 

143,767 

480 

448 
14,800 
22,300 

297 

THE  ROLLING  STOCK 


166 


The  Board  of  Trade  statisticians  would  be  rendering 
a  great  service  to  the  scientific  operation  of  railways  if 
they  would  follow  up  the  above  line  of  inquiry  and  present 
the  results  in  an  intelligible  form.  As  it  is  they  devote 
little  attention  to  rolling  stock.  Beyond  adding  up  the 
numbers  of  locomotives,  passenger  coaches  and  goods 
vehicles  furnished  to  them  by  the  railway  companies, 
they  do  very  little  with  them.  The  only  separate  table 
they  devote  to  rolling  stock  (No.  5,  p.  xxii,  Intro- 
duction) gives  merely  the  average  number  of  each  class 
per  mile.  This  has  a  certain  degree  of  interest,  but  not 
much  practical  value.  It  affords  no  indication  of  the 
comparative  amounts  of  work  that  are  being  done  in 
the  three  kingdoms  respectively.  Where  railways  differ 
so  Avidely  in  cost  of  construction  and  in  earning  power, 
mileage  averages  have  little  significance.  But  such  as 
they  are  we  append  a  few  examples  of  them  : — 

Averages  of  Rolling  Stock  per  Mile  of  Line,  1911. 


England  and 
Wales. 

Scotland. 

Ireland. 

Locomotives 

Passenger  Coaches       .      .      . 
Other  Vehicles  on  Passenger 

Trains 

Goods  Wagons  of  all  kinds  . 
Other  Carriages  or  Wagons   . 
Total  number  of  Vehic  es  *    . 
Average  number  per  Mile 

1-20 

2-77 

101 

360 

113 

662,709 

40-91 

0-66 
1-68 

0-66 

3715 

0-54 

162,320 

39-93 

0-26 
0-60 

0-36 

6-26 

0-30 

26,684 

•627 

♦  Excluding  Locomotives. 

Owing  to  the  meagre  character  of  the  official  statistics 
relating  to  roUing  stock,  any  calculation  of  average  earn- 
ings and  cost  of  maintenance  must  of  necessity  be  merely 
approximate.  We  may  obtain  a  rough  idea  of  the  earning 
power  of  the  locomotives  on  a  system  by  dividing  their 
total  number  into  the  gross  earnings  of  the  year.  But 
we  cannot  distinguish  the  earnings  of  the  goods  from  those 
of  the  passenger  locomotives,  because  the  locomotives 
themselves  are  not  distinguished.  The  reader  may,  how- 
ever, desire  to  see  an  estimate  of  them  however  vague. 


156 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


We  therefore  divide  the  total  number  of  locomotives  in 
the  returns  (about  23,000)  equaUy  between  the  goods 
and  the  passenger  services.  The  resulting  averages 
come  out  as  imder,  first  for  locomotives  and  then  for 
coaches  and  wagons — 


Earnings  per  Passenger  and  per 

Goods  Locomotive. 

England  and 
Wales. 

Scotland. 

Ireland. 

Passenger  : 

Locomotives  *    .     .     .     . 
Gross  Earnings  .... 
Per  Locomotive       .     .     . 

Goods  : 

Locomotives  *    .     .     .     . 
Total  Earnings  .... 
Per  Locomotive 

9,736 

£46,308,000 

£4,766 

9,736 

£53,921,000 

£5,640 

1,252 

£5,362,000 

£4,280 

1,252 

£7,281,000 

£6,800 

448 

£2,284,000 

£6,100 

448 

£2,082,000 

£4,647 

*  One-half  of  the  total  number  reported,  passenger  and  goods  engines 
not  being  distinguished  in  official  returns. 


Earnings  per  Passenger  CJoach  and  per  Goods  Wagon. 


England  and 
Wales. 

Scotland. 

Ireland. 

Passenger : 

Coaches  and  Van     .     .     . 

Total  Earnings 

Per  Vehicle 

Goods  : 

Wagons 

Total  Earnings  .... 
Per  Wagon 

60,107 

£46,308,000 

£770 

601,472 

£53,921,000 

£89 

8,649 

£6,362,000 

£627 

143,767 

£7,281,000 

£50 

3,269 

£2,284,000 

£700 

22,300 

£2,082,000 

£93 

Two  or  three  paradoxes  catch  the  eye  in  the  above 
tables.  One  is  the  uniformity  in  average  earnings  of  the 
rolling  stock  in  all  three  kingdoms.  Per  locomotive  it 
varies  only  in  the  passenger  service  from  £4,280  in  Scotland 
to  £5,100  in  Ireland,  and  on  the  goods  side  from  £4,647  in 
Ireland  to  £5,800  in  Scotland.  Another  paradox  is  that 
passenger  coach  earnings  are  greater  in  Ireland  than  in 
Scotland,  and  stranger  still,  they  are  almost  as  great  as 


THE  ROLLING  STOCK  167 

in  England.  The  averages,  it  will  be  seen,  are,  England 
and  Wales  £770,  Scotland  £627,  and  Ireland  £700.  In 
the  goods  department  more  anomalies  present  themselves. 
Ireland  shows  the  highest  average  per  wagon  in  1911, 
namely,  £93,  while  England  and  Wales  come  second  with 
X89,  and  Scotland  brings  up  the  rear  with  £50. 

Why  the  average  earnings  of  a  goods  wagon  should  be 
so  much  lower  in  Scotland  than  in  the  other  two  kingdoms 
is  a  puzzling  question.  For  an  offset  to  it  we  find  an 
exactly  opposite  anomaly  in  the  average  earnings  of  the 
Scottish  locomotives.  These  are  somewhat  higher  in 
Scotland  than  in  England,  and  considerably  higher 
than  in  Ireland  (Ireland  £4,647,  England  £5,538,  and 
Scotland  £5,800).  Nor  is  this  the  only  contradictory 
feature.  When  we  try  to  test  the  accuracy  of  the  average 
earnings  per  goods  wagon  by  the  average  amount  of 
work  done,  we  find  a  fresh  discrepancy.  The  latter, 
measured  by  the  number  of  tons  carried  in  1911,  was  480 
tons  in  Scotland  as  compared  with  745  tons  in  England, 
and  only  297  tons  in  Ireland.  A  Scottish  wagon,  while 
doing  two-thirds  of  the  work  of  the  English  wagon,  gets 
only  about  60  per  cent,  of  its  earnings. 

Various  other  explanations  of  Scotland's  ton  average 
earnings  may  suggest  themselves.  One  is  an  imusually 
large  proportion  of  mineral  and  other  low-grade  freight. 
Another  is  the  possibility — or  may  we  not  say  the 
probability? — that  an  exceptional  quantity  of  rolling 
stock  has  been  kept  in  service  after  it  ought  to  have 
been  scrapped?  Scrapping  will  never  be  a  popular 
operation  in  Scotland,  though  it  may  often  be  penny  wise 
and  poimd  foolish  to  shirk  it.  Still  another  feasible  ex- 
planation is  the  extreme  length  to  which  the  abuse  of 
demurrage  privileges  was  carried  in  Scotland  before  the 
drastic  reform  introduced  two  years  ago.  And,  to  con- 
clude, the  suggestion  may  be  made  that  the  low  earning 
capacity  of  the  Scottish  wagon  may  indicate  a  lower 
level  of  freight  rates  than  England  or  Ireland  enjoy. 

The  subjoined  table  gives  the  average  earnings  of  the 
locomotives,  the  passenger  coaches  and  the  goods  wagons 
on  each  of  our  nine  principal  railways  in  1911.    The  figures 


158 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


will  cause  some  surprise,  seeing  that  the  best  results  do 
not  appear  where  they  might  have  been  most  naturally 
expected.  It  is  not  the  London  and  North- Western  that 
comes  out  first  in  the  comparisons,  but  the  London  and 
South-Western.  The  latter  has  a  very  small  supply 
of  rolling  stock  in  proportion  to  its  mileage,  but  this 
anomaly  may  be  due  to  the  lightness  of  its  traffic  and 
the  easy  grades  it  has  to  work  over  on  the  greater  part 
of  its  system.  Even  then  £6,823  per  annum  is  a  large 
average  earning  for  locomotives,  and  £267  is  an  equally 
good  record  for  coaches  and  other  vehicles — 


Comparative  Eabninos  op  Rolling  Stock  on  British  Trunk 
Lines.  1911. 


Number  of 
Loco- 
motives. 

Earned  by 
each  Loco- 
motive. 

Number  of 

Coaches, 

Wagons, 

etc. 

Earned  by 

each 

Vehicle. 

Great  Central  .... 
Great  Eastern  .... 
Great  Northern 
Great  Western       .     .     . 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
London  and  North- Western 
London  and  South-Western 
Midland 

1,182 
1,080 
1,279 
2,596 
1,549 
3,063 
748 
2,800 
2,000 

4,032 
5,400 
4,510 
5,428 
3,929 
6,193 
6,823 
4,593 
6,168 

37.540 
32,291 
43,160 
77,465 
39,163 
87,946 
19,073 
123,060 
121,888 

£ 

127 
180 
134 
182 
155 
181 
267 
104 

85 

North  Eastern        .     .     . 

16,297 

4,950       581,586 

139 

For  a  variety  of  reasons  the  rolling  stock,  or,  as  the 
Americans  call  it,  the  "  equipment  "  problem  is  receiving 
increasing  attention.  Sweeping  charges  are  being  made 
against  this  branch  of  the  service  which  must  be  at  least 
discussed.  Whether  or  not  they  can  be  efifectively 
answered  remains  to  be  seen.  Some  of  them  bear  marks 
of  exaggeration  on  the  face  of  them.  It  has,  for  instance, 
been  aUeged  by  the  author  of  the  goods  clearing-house 
project  that  there  are  fourteen  hundred  thousand  goods 
wagons  in  use  on  the  railways  of  the  United  Kingdom, 
and  that  their  average  amount  of  actual  service  is  only 
three  days  per  annum. 


THE  ROLLING  STOCK  169 

We  have  already  given  the  actual  numbers  appearing 
in  the  official  returns  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  namely 
767,539.  The  only  important  additions  there  can  be  to 
make  to  these  are  the  privately  owned  wagons  of  collieries 
and  coal  merchants,  which  can  hardly  account  for  the 
missing  six  hundred  thousand.  Anyhow  they  are  another 
confusing  element  in  calculations  of  work  done  by  roUing 
stock.  Some  lines  have  more  privately  owned  wagons 
than  others,  and  this,  of  course,  disarranges  the  averages. 
Again,  railways  may  differ  widely  as  regards  the  condition 
of  their  rolling  stock.  Among  three-quarters  of  a  million 
wagons  there  may  be  all  ages,  from  a  few  months  up  to 
twenty  or  thirty  years,  and  all  sizes  from  six  tons  up 
to  fifty.  Finally,  there  may  be  great  differences  in  local 
customs  as  to  demurrage  and  the  consequent  detention 
of  wagons  in  sidings  and  station  yards. 

Qualifications  like  these  must  of  course  detract  from  the 
value  of  averages  based  on  such  huge  numbers  and 
quantities.  Any  comparison  of  hauling  power  or  earning 
power  drawn  between  the  equipments  of  various  railways 
can  be  at  best  only  approximate.  But  it  is  worth  making, 
however  imperfect  and  incomplete  the  available  data. 
When  developed  and  perfected,  as  it  may  easily  be  when 
its  value  begins  to  be  appreciated,  it  should  furnish  more 
useful  as  well  as  simpler  tests  of  efficient  management 
than  any  hitherto  employed.  It  may  even  be  found 
preferable  to  the  scientific  ton  mile  and  passenger  mile 
formula,  as  to  which  railway  experts  and  statistical 
experts  are  so  hopelessly  disagreed. 

Many  points  in  railway  economics  are  best  illustrated 
in  the  rolling  stock  department.  It  shows,  for  example, 
more  clearly  than  any  other  branch  of  the  service  the 
general  tendency  toward  higher  prices  of  everything  that 
railways  consume.  In  the  decade  1902-11  the  cost  of 
working  the  engines  rose  from  SJ  millions  sterling 
(£5,250,000)  to  nearly  6|  miUions  (£6,686,000).  This  was 
an  increase  of  close  on  a  million  and  a  half  sterling,  or 
30  per  cent.,  in  the  ten  years.  The  actual  rate  of  increase 
was  3*2  per  cent,  per  annum.  In  connection  with  this  a 
significant  circumstance    may  be  noted.     Repairs  and 


160  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

renewals  of  engines  cost  fully  40  per  cent,  of  their  operating 
expenses.  This  sounds  a  large  proportion,  especially  if  we 
remember  that  the  operating  expenses  themselves  may  be 
none  too  low. 

What  was  said  in  a  preceding  chapter  about  the  dis- 
proportionate amount  of  the  terminal  charges  compared 
with  the  haulage  charge  proper  might  be  repeated  in  a 
modified  sense  about  the  rolling  stock.  Its  share  in  the 
total  cost  of  operating  trains  may  not  be  very  large,  but 
it  is  insufficiently  appreciated.  Still  more  so  is  the 
influence  it  has  had  on  the  capital  account.  From  12| 
to  15  per  cent,  of  the  aggregate  capital  expenditure  on 
British  railways  is  generally  debited  to  rolUng  stock.  In 
1904  Mr.  Acworth  attempted  an  analysis  of  the  capital 
account,  which  then  amounted  in  round  numbers  to 
1,200  millions  sterling.  He  estimated  the  preliminary 
surveys  and  parliamentary  expenses  at  £4,000  per  mile, 
or,  on  the  then  mileage,  £90,000,000;  the  road  bed, 
terminals  and  buildings  at  £800,000,000,  and  the  rolling 
stock  of  all  kinds  at  £150,000,000.  For  every  sixteen 
shillings  spent  on  the  road  bed  and  stations,  three  shillings 
would  have  to  be  found  for  locomotives,  coaches,  wagons, 
etc. 


BOOK  FOURTH-COMMERCIAL 
CHAPTER  XIV 

THEORIES   OF   RATE-MAKING 

As  regards  their  rates  British  railways  are  in  a  most 
peculiar  and  anomalous  position.  A  railway  is  a  very 
complex  business  undertaking  which  cannot  be  conducted 
on  purely  business  lines.  It  is  an  important  public 
service  which  has  to  consider  the  interests  of  its  corporate 
owners  as  well  as  those  of  the  public.  It  is  supposed  to 
be  administered  by  a  representative  body  of  directors 
responsible  to  their  shareholders,  but  directors  and 
shareholders  alike  are  subject  to  continual  interference 
by  legislative  and  official  authorities.  It  employs  an 
army  of  six  hundred  thousand  men,  and  pays  them 
more  than  the  average  wage  for  their  class  of  labour,  but 
it  is  not  the  absolute  master  of  any  of  them. 

The  greatest  anomaly  of  all  in  the  British  railway  is 
that  it  has  been  found  impossible  even  for  the  most 
expert  of  its  managers  to  define  the  principle  on  which  its 
services  are  charged  for,  in  other  words,  the  principle 
on  which  its  rates  and  fares  are  determined.  They  are  not 
governed  by  any  of  the  familiar  rules  of  ordinary  business, 
and  yet  all  of  them  have  to  be  recognised  more  or  less. 
A  railway  cannot  follow  the  example  of  a  factory  and  add 
a  percentage  of  profit  to  the  actual  cost  of  production. 
While  the  factory  produces  only  two  or  three  staple 
articles,  the  railway  renders  in  course  of  a  year  millions 
of  services  all  separate  and  distinct.  Each  of  them  has 
its  special  conditions,  and  only  to  a  partial  extent  can  it 
be  brought  under  any  general  rule. 

M  161 


162  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

Four  or  five  different  sets  of  principles  may  be  applied 
to  the  making  of  railway  rates  :  first,  purely  business 
principles  which  consider  solely  the  interests  of  the 
undertaking  itself;  second,  economic  principles  which 
also  take  into  account  the  rights  and  interests  of  the 
community;  third,  parliamentary  principles  arising  out 
of  the  statutory  duties  and  restrictions  imposed  upon  it ; 
fourth,  competitive  principles  more  or  less  powerful 
according  to  the  amount  of  competition  it  has  to  face  at 
various  points  on  its  system.  Against  the  latter  may, 
however,  be  set  the  advantage  of  co-operation  among 
neighbouring  companies  who  are  wise  enough  to  live  on 
friendly  terms  with  each  other. 

After  taking  a  general  survey  of  the  vast  area  of  railway 
rates  with  their  infinite  diversities,  it  will  not  be  difficult 
to  understand  what  an  immense  amount  of  skill  and  care 
must  have  been  expended  in  bringing  them  up  to  their 
present  level,  moderate  as  it  is.  Years  of  negotiation 
with  Chambers  of  Commerce  and  individual  traders, 
whole  sessions  of  parfiamentary  warfare,  and  conferences 
without  number  among  railway  managers  have  been 
required  to  formulate  the  rate-book  of  the  present  day. 
It  is  the  outcome  of  a  mixture  of  all  the  principles  above 
enumerated — business,  economic,  parliamentary  and  com- 
petitive. The  rates,  therefore,  cannot  be  fairly  judged 
by  any  one  standard,  for  various  principles  have  had 
more  or  less  influence  on  them.  In  the  words  of  a 
distinguished  authority,  Mr.  Grierson,  a  former  Greneral 
Manager  of  the  Great  Western  Railway — 

"  The  managers  of  English  railways  have  not  assumed 
that  they  could  fix  rates  on  a  *  scientific  '  or  a  *  natural ' 
basis.  But  they  have  endeavoured,  after  consulting 
merchants,  manufacturers  and  traders,  to  fix  such  rates 
as  were  required  to  develop  the  largest  amount  of  trade, 
and  it  is  submitted  that  they  have  been  carrying  out 
principles  which  will  on  the  whole  bear  the  closest 
examination.  ...  It  has  been  the  aim  of  railway  com- 
panies to  make  rates  conform  to  the  requirements  of 
trade,  or,  according  to  a  popular  expression,  to  charge 
what  the  traffic  will  bear.'* 


THEORIES  OP  RATE-MAKING  163 

Then  turning  on  his  critics  Mr.  Grierson  retorts — 

"  When  English  railway  companies  are  accused  of 
imposing  charges  at  haphazard  and  in  an  arbitrary 
fashion,  what  scientific  principle,  it  may  ]be  asked,  ought 
to  be  followed?  There  is  no  escaping  this  question — 
not  even  if  the  task  of  framing  or  controlling  rates  were 
committed,  as  has  been  sometimes  proposed,  to  the  Board 
of  Trade  or  the  Railway  Commissioners." 

Since  that  was  written  we  have  witnessed  a  long 
advance  toward  the  officially  fixed  rates  to  which  it 
sarcastically  alluded.  Already  they  are  in  full  swing  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  Westminster  is  rapidly 
drifting  toward  them  with  its  emergency  laws  to  allow 
railway  rates  to  be  raised  for  the  special  benefit  of  labour 
voters.  It  must  now  be  clear  to  the  duUed  compre- 
hension that  British  railway  rates,  like  British  railway 
wages,  are  no  longer  to  be  settled  either  on  business  or 
on  economic  principles.  Both  of  them  are  passing  imder 
the  parliamentary  regime  and  becoming  questions  of 
party  politics.  Their  only  hope  of  escape  from  such  a 
doom  is  that  railway  directors,  traders  and  employees 
may  discover  some  means  of  settling  their  differences 
among  themselves. 

Parliamentary  intervention  has  done  little  good  to  any 
of  them.  In  fact,  the  latest  example  of  it — the  Railways 
(No.  2)  Act — simply  stirred  up  another  hornet's  nest. 
Now  that  the  vexed  questions  of  rates  and  wages  have 
got  hopelessly  mixed  up  in  the  public  mind,  and  particu- 
larly in  the  minds  of  working-men,  it  is  more  than  ever 
necessary  to  see  them  in  their  true  and  unbiased  relations 
to  each  other.  To  this  end  the  impartial  reader  will 
endeavour  to  appreciate  and  do  justice  to  the  principles 
on  which  the  contending  parties  have  hitherto  been 
working.  Several  generations  of  railway  managers  and 
experts  have  followed  certain  rules  in  the  fixing  of  rates. 
They  have  put  these  on  record,  and  have  repeatedly 
explained  and  vindicated  them.  In  the  rush  and  con- 
fusion of  new  ideas  that  now  prevail  these  are  in  danger 
of  being  brushed  aside  and  forgotten,  which  might  be 
a  great  loss  for  the  community.     As  a  safeguard  against 


164  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

it  a  little  time  may  be  well  employed  in  recalling  some  of 
the  theories  of  rate-making  which  governed  our  railways 
during  the  first  three-quarters  of  a  century  of  their 
history. 

Their  fundamental  idea,  of  course,  is  that  the  builders 
and  operators  of  a  railway  are  to  have  every  opportunity 
to  obtain  from  it  a  reasonable  return  on  their  outlay. 
They  have  indeed  a  double  claim  to  such  a  return — first 
as  an  elementary  right  at  common  law,  and  secondly  as 
the  holders  of  a  special  legislative  charter.  As  to  the 
claim  itself,  there  can  be  no  difference  of  opinion,  but  as 
to  the  best  method  of  enforcing  it  practical  authorities 
have  and  still  do  differ  widely.  For  example,  one  of 
them  lays  down  that  "  each  item  of  traffic  must  bear 
its  fair  share  of  the  total  cost  of  the  entire  railway 
service."  This  may  be  distinguished  as  the  "  cost  of 
service  "  doctrine  which,  being  the  most  business-looking, 
has  naturally  foimd  the  largest  number  of  adherents. 
Mr.  Ac  worth  has  thus  defined  it — 

"  The  guiding  idea  of  the  management  remains  the 
same  throughout.  Each  rate  has,  as  we  have  seen,  its 
own  maximum  and  minimum.  All  the  rates  must 
among  them  cover  all  the  expenses  and  leave,  if  possible, 
a  sufficient  margin  to  pay  interest  on  capital  at  the 
normal  rate.  Inter  se  the  rates  must  be  so  adjusted  that 
each  item  of  traffic  bears  its  fair  share  of  the  total  cost  of 
the  entire  railway  service."  ^ 

The  above  is  perhaps  the  nearest  approach  that  has 
been  made  in  our  railway  text-books  to  a  definition  of 
rate-making  at  once  practical  and  scientific.  Unfortun- 
ately it  does  not  seem  as  yet  to  have  got  far  beyond  the 
text-books.  The  generation  of  railway  managers  which 
claimed  for  its  own  Findlay,  Grierson  and  Laing  did  not 
profess  to  be  able  to  assign  even  to  the  most  important 
items  of  traffic  their  "  fair  share  of  the  total  cost  of  the 
entire  railway  service."  The  Select  Committee  of  1888 
investigated  this  question  more  thoroughly  than  it  has 
ever  been  done  before  or  since,  and  the  conclusion  it 
arrived  at  was  distinctly  negative.  The  following  extract 
^  Elements  of  Railway  Economics,  by  W.  M.  Acworth. 


THEORIES   OF  RATE-MAKING  166 

from  its  report  expresses  its  views  on  the  relation  between 
rates  and  cost  of  service — 

*'  According  to  the  evidence  of  the  railway  managers 
who  appeared  before  us,  no  general  principle  or  system 
of  fixing  rates  has  been  adopted  on  any  railway  in  this 
country.  The  charge  for  conveyance,  they  informed  us, 
was  such  a  sum  within  the  power  of  the  Company  as 
they  thought  the  traffic  would  bear,  having  regard  to 
competition  both  of  other  means  of  conveyance  and  of 
other  districts  or  markets;  in  other  words,  as  much  as 
could  be  got,  and  without  reference  to  the  cost  to  the 
Company  of  performing  the  service.  Indeed  the  managers 
examined  informed  us  that  they  found  it  impracticable 
to  determine  with  accuracy  the  cost  of  conveying  any 
particular  kind  of  goods  between  two  stations." 

A  much  later  authority  has  enforced  that  view  in 
terms  which  greatly  strengthen  and  emphasise  it.  Sir 
George  Gibb,  in  his  introduction  to  Sir  George  Paish's 
British  Railway  Position,  remarks — 

"It  is  in  the  ascertainment  of  the  total  cost  of  the 
separate  branches  of  railway  service  that  the  main 
difficulty  lies.  A  railway  is  worked  as  a  whole,  and  though 
many  items  can  be  separated  in  the  accounts  and  allocated 
to  particular  services,  the  residue,  which  no  knowledge 
and  no  ingenuity  can  allocate,  is  so  large  that  the  result 
must  always  be  a  very  doubtful  and  distant  approxima- 
tion to  actual  fact.  This  is  not  surprising  when  it  is 
considered  that  the  fact  itself  is  in  the  nature  of  a  meta- 
physical abstraction.  There  is  no  such  thing,  in  fact, 
as  the  cost  of  moving  a  passenger  by  himself  or  a  ton  by 
itself.  It  is  impossible  to  ascertain  the  separate  cost  of 
working  passenger  goods  and  mineral  trafiic  on  a  railway, 
because  these  kinds  of  traffic  are  not  separately  worked 
except  in  regard  to  some  items  of  the  service.  .  .  .  This, 
however,  does  not  diminish  the  necessity  for  knowing 
ton  miles  and  passenger  miles.  It  merely  limits  the  field 
for  the  employment  of  the  figures."  ^ 

Still  a  third  authority,  and  this  time  an  American 
one,  may  be  cited  against  Mr.  Acworth's  doctrine  that 

*  British  Railimij  Position,  Introduction  by  Sir  George  Gibb,  p.  vii. 


166  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

railway  rates  can  be  adjusted  "  so  that  each  item  of 
traffic  bears  its  fair  share  of  the  total  cost  of  the  entire 
railway  service."  Professor  Hadley  in  his  well-known 
treatise  regards  cost  of  service  as  a  comparatively  small 
factor  in  the  problem.  It  has,  he  says,  **  played  only 
a  minor  part,  and  the  possibility  of  developing  traffic 
has  been  the  main  question  considered."  This  is  a  char- 
acteristically American  verdict.  He  goes  so  far  as  to 
affirm  that  fifty  per  cent,  reductions  in  rates  have  been 
known  to  develop  such  an  increase  of  traffic  that  the  net 
profits  have  been  doubled. 

British  theories  of  rate-making  have  been  adopted 
by  American  writers  so  far  as  they  are  appHcable  to 
American  conditions,  but  they  are  largely  supplemented 
by  others  of  native  origin.  Of  these  the  most  interesting 
is  what  we  have  just  termed  the  "  development  "  theory. 
It  savours  of  a  young  country  with  boundless  resources 
waiting  to  be  utilised.  Under  such  exceptionally  favour- 
able conditions  an  almost  indefinite  reduction  of  rates 
may  prove  remunerative,  or  at  least  may  be  carried  on 
without  actual  loss,  but  in  an  old  country  such  as  our 
railways  have  to  serve  it  might  be  easily  overdone. 
Professor  Hadley 's  account  of  it  is,  however,  well  put 
from  the  American  standpoint — 

"  It  took  some  time  for  railroad  authorities  to  wake  up 
to  the  fact  which  now  seems  self-evident,  namely,  that 
the  profitableness  of  a  railroad  as  a  whole  or  of  any 
particular  part  of  its  business  depends  quite  as  much  upon 
the  volume  of  traffic  secured  as  upon  the  absolute  price 
charged.  It  was  further  seen  that  certain  lines  of 
business  were  of  such  a  character  that  little  or  no  move- 
ment could  be  obtained  at  high  rates,  while  a  great  deal 
could  be  had  if  the  rates  were  made  low  enough. 

**  Even  when  a  railroad  tariff  was  originally  based  on 
differences  of  cost  of  service,  it  does  not  long  continue 
so.  It  never  remains  long  vmchanged.  Every  day 
special  circumstances  arise  which  were  not  foreseen  and 
which  seem  to  demand  a  change.  The  question  in  every 
such  case  is,  what  will  be  the  effect  of  the  change  ?  If 
rates   are  reduced  on   certain  lines  of   business,   gross 


THEORIES  OF  RATE-MAKING  167 

earnings  will  probably  increase  on  account  of  increased 
volume  of  business  obtained.  But  will  net  earnings 
increase  ?  That  is  to  say,  will  gross  earnings  increase 
faster  than  operating  expenses  ?  This  is  the  real  question, 
and  its  answer  involves  two  elements.  One  is  the 
expense  of  hauling  each  additional  car-load ;  so  far  rates 
are  based  upon  cost  of  service.  The  other  is  the  in- 
creased development  of  business  by  lower  rates ;  this  is 
quite  independent  of  cost  of  service.  To  a  certain  extent 
both  these  elements  have  acted  in  combination  to  secure 
the  great  permanent  reduction  in  rates.  But  in  each 
particular  case  cost  of  service  has  played  only  a  minor 
part,  and  possibility  of  developing  traffic  has  been  the 
main  question  considered."  ^ 

The  last  two  sentences  suggest  a  question  which  may  be 
fairly  put  to  our  railway  managers — have  they  done  their 
full  duty  in  the  way  of  "  development  "  rates  as  these 
are  understood  on  American  railroads  ?  In  other  words, 
have  they  always  been  on  the  look-out  for  new  enterprises 
to  encourage  and  infant  industries  to  foster  with  a  view 
to  creating  fresh  sources  of  traffic?  They  may  reply 
that  whatever  they  might  have  done  in  this  way  years 
ago,  when  they  were  free  to  adapt  their  tariff  to  changing 
circumstances,  they  are  no  longer  their  own  masters. 
Now-a-days  they  cannot  alter  a  rate  without  a  wearisome 
round  of  formality  and  red  tape.  Even  to  restore  a 
reduced  rate  may  involve  costly  lawsuits.  Thus  they 
are  practically  forced  into  a  policy  of  masterly  inac- 
tivity as  regards  the  most  important  branch  of  their 
business,  the  goods  traffic.  They  may  exercise  their 
ingenuity  in  dispatching  300  expresses  a  day  from  London, 
but  they  cannot  on  their  own  authority  vary  a  goods 
rate  to  the  extent  of  a  shilling.  Hence  some  of  them 
have  come  to  consider  that  their  special  function  is  to 
spend  money  for  their  shareholders,  not  to  earn  it. 

In  sharp  contrast  to  the  "  cost  of  service  "  theory  of 

rate-making  there  is  one  that  charges  according  to  the 

value  of  the  goods,  bulk  and  weight  being  also  of  course 

taken  into  account.     This  may  be  distinguished  as  the 

1  Hadley's  Transportation  Problem,  p.  109. 


168  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

ad  valorem  theory,  and  it  has  perhaps  had  most  practical 
influence  on  existing  rates.  Our  whole  classification 
system  has  been  built  up  on  it — first  by  the  railway 
companies  themselves,  next  by  the  Clearing  Houses,  and 
finally  by  the  legislation  of  1888-1894.  Classification 
is  an  indirect  form  of  rate-making.  It  is  just  as  easy 
to  change  a  rate  by  shifting  the  commodity  into  a  higher 
or  a  lower  class  as  to  alter  the  rate  itself.  Under  present 
conditions  it  may  even  be  easier. 

Classification  being  the  basis  of  rating,  the  history  of 
the  one  is  quite  as  interesting  and  important  as  that  of 
the  other.  In  the  early  annals  of  the  railway  we  read 
quite  as  much  about  classification  as  about  rates.  It 
was  a  perfectly  natural  idea  to  be  evolved  by  the  primi- 
tive science  of  transportation.  It  was  only  a  natural 
principle  for  the  railways  to  borrow  from  their  original 
models,  the  canal  and  the  turnpikes.  The  special  Acts 
imder  which  the  pioneer  railways  were  incorporated  all  ex- 
hibit rudiments  of  classification.  The  Select  Committee 
of  1888  thus  referred  to  them — 

"  One  set  of  clauses  specifies  charges  for  the  use  of  the 
line,  for  wagons  or  carriages,  and  for  locomotive  power; 
and  another  set  of  clauses  the  maximum  rates  they  can 
charge  for  the  conveyance  of  passengers  or  of  goods, 
including  everything  incidental  to  the  conveyance  except 
wherein  otherwise  provided.  .  .  .  Goods  are  usually  divided 
into  four  or  five  different  classes,  for  which  different  mileage 
rates  are  allowed,  and  the  rates  range  from  Id.  to  5d. 
per  ton  per  mile  except  for  coals,  which  imder  some  Acts 
are  carried  under  special  conditions  at  less  than  Id. 
per  mile." 

The  first  generation  of  railway  experts  had  much  more 
exalted  ideas  of  their  statistical  skill  than  were  justified 
by  actual  results,  and  they  imagined  the  classification  of 
railway  items  to  be  a  much  simpler  task  than  it  after- 
wards proved.  Dr.  Lardner's  forecast  of  how  it  should 
be  done  sounds  now-a-days  rather  naive — ^ 

"  It  would  be  necessary  to  classify  the  merchandise 
first  according  to  the  description  of  vehicle  in  which  it 
^  Dr.  Lardner's  Railvmy  Economy,  p.  205. 


THEORIES  OF  RATE-MAKING  169 

is  transported,  and  secondly  according  to  its  tariff. 
Special  vehicles  are  appropriated  to  different  descriptions 
of  goods,  and  in  order  to  ascertain  the  cost  of  the  trans- 
port of  each  class  of  goods  it  would  be  necessary  to  keep 
a  separate  mileage  account  not  only  of  each  class  of 
traffic,  but  of  each  class  of  vehicle  appropriated  to  its 
transport.  The  average  load  carried  by  each  vehicle 
would  be  determined  by  a  comparison  of  these  mileages, 
and  upon  this  average  would  depend  the  cost  of  the 
transport." 

Much  less  minute  particulars  than  Dr.  Lardner  advo* 
cated  would  satisfy  the  most  exacting  railway  statistician 
of  our  own  day.  His  ideal  standard  was  a  counsel  of 
perfection  which  neither  he  nor  any  of  his  successors  ever 
realised.  At  a  much  later  date  they  still  fell  far  short 
of  it.  On  the  British  and  the  American  railway  systems 
classification  developed  on  somewhat  different  lines,  but 
the  ruling  principle  in  both  cases  was  value.  Professor 
Hadley  states  this  very  clearly  with  regard  to  the 
American  policy — 

"  Railroads  divide  their  freight  into  four  or  more 
classes,  the  division  being  mainly  based  on  the  value  of 
the  goods.  Thus  dry  goods  are  placed  in  the  first  class, 
and  lumber  in  the  fourth,  and  the  charges  on  the  former 
are  made  two  or  three  times  as  high  as  on  the  latter.  There 
is  a  difference  in  cost  of  handling  and  of  risk,  but  nothing 
like  as  great  as  the  difference  in  charge.  The  railroad 
does  not  base  its  charge  on  cost  of  service,  but  upon  what 
the  traffic  will  bear.  A  ton  of  lumber  has  so  little  value 
that  if  they  attempted  to  charge  the  same  rates  for  it 
that  they  do  for  the  dry  goods  they  would  get  none  of 
it  to  carry,  the  traffic  would  not  bear  the  higher  rate. 
A  great  deal  of  freight  of  small  value  is  carried  not  merely 
at  less  than  the  average  rates,  but  at  less  than  the  average 
cost,  that  is,  at  rates  which  if  appHed  to  the  whole  business 
of  the  road  would  not  pay  expenses.  Most  people  assume 
that  such  business  is  an  actual  loss  to  the  road,  and  that 
other  business  is  taxed  to  make  up  for  it.  This  is  a 
fallacy.  Any  rate  which  will  more  than  cover  the  expense 
of  moving  the  cars  and  handling  the  goods  is  a  paymg 


170  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

rate,  provided  the  business  can  be  had  on  no  other 
terms." 

This  was  a  popular  doctrine  in  the  United  States  in 
the  days  of  rate  wars,  and  in  thus  boldly  stating  it, 
Professor  Hadley  was  echoing  the  excuses  of  the  fighting 
railway  managers  for  cutting  rates.  It  was  a  favourite 
theme  with  Mr.  C.  P.  Huntington  of  the  Southern  Pacific 
and  other  railroad  men  of  his  class.  They  argued  that 
having  secured  a  pa3dng  train-load,  anything  they  could 
get  in  addition  would  be  so  much  extra  revenue.  But 
the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  does  not  encourage 
that  sort  of  logic,  and  it  is  no  longer  fashionable  even  in 
the  States.  TT^ere  was  never  room  for  it  in  this  country. 
Where  there  are  no  unlimited  sources  of  traffic  a  level 
is  soon  reached  when  further  concessions  in  rates  would 
bring  out  no  more  freight,  and  would  consequently  be 
thrown  away. 

But  though  the  "  development  "  policy  of  rate-making 
once  so  popular  in  America  has  never  been  and  could 
not  be  practised  here  on  a  large  scale,  it  has  been  endorsed 
by  some  of  our  writers  on  railway  economics.  It  forms 
part  of  Mr.  Acworth's  three  fundamental  rules  of  railway 
policy. 

"  The  policy  common  to  all  railways,  whether  owned 
by  the  State  or  by  private  companies,  is — 

1.  Get  traffic.  The  more  traffic  carried  the  less  it 
costs  to  carry. 

2.  Charge  no  rate  so  high  as  to  stop  the  traffic  from 
going.     Subject  to — 

3.  That  no  rate  shall  be  so  low  as  not  to  cover  the 
additional  cost  incurred  by  the  railway  in  dealing  with 
the  traffic  to  which  the  rate  applies."  ^ 

These  are  American  maxims  toned  down  for  British 
traders,  but  the  plain  truth  is  that  British  railway  rates 
owe  little  or  nothing  to  scientific  evolution.  They  passed 
through  three  successive  stages,  and  now  appear  to  be 
entering  on  a  fourth. 

First,  each  railway  did  the  best  it  could  for  itself,  and 
*  Acworth's  Elements  of  Railtoay  Economics,  p.  71. 


THEORIES  OF  RATE-MAKING  171 

got  the  highest  rates  that  Parliament  would  grant  fixed 
in  its  special  Acts. 

Second,  the  various  companies  put  their  heads  together 
and  agreed  on  schedules  of  rates  as  nearly  uniform  as 
they  could  make  them. 

Third,  then  the  Board  of  Trade  and  the  House  of 
Commons  stepped  in,  and  by  the  legislation  of  188^-1894 
established  a  certain  degree  of  statutory  uniformity. 

But  before  this  happy  conclusion  was  reached  many 
parliamentary  inquiries  had  to  be  held,  and  many  Select 
Committees  had  to  report  on  them.  The  Railway  Rates 
Committee  of  1881-82  may  be  said  to  have  commenced 
the  campaign  on  behalf  of  intelligible  rates  and  classifica- 
tions. The  state  of  affairs  at  that  date  is  thus  described 
in  its  report — 

"  The  representatives  of  the  railways  agreed  with  some 
of  the  witnesses  who  gave  evidence  on  behalf  of  the 
traders  as  to  the  original  classifications  in  the  Acts  of  the 
companies  having  become  obsolete.  They  explained 
that  from  time  to  time  they  had  been  rectifying  in  the 
manner  already  described  the  defects  of  the  statutory 
classification,  and  that,  acting  on  information  communi- 
cated by  manufacturers  and  merchants,  and  guided  by 
their  own  experience,  they  had  framed  and  generally 
adopted  the  Railway  Clearing  House  Classification,  which 
embraces  some  2,700  articles." 

From  1881  to  1888  was  a  period  of  active  agitation  in 
the  railway  world.  Rates  and  classifications  were  the 
most  heated  subjects  of  discussion.  Bewildering  diversity 
of  tariffs  still  continued,  so  much  so  as  to  amaze  the 
Select  Committee  of  1888.  It  condemned  the  existing 
situation  even  more  strongly  than  the  Select  Committee 
of  1881-82  had  done — 

"  Your  Committee  have  failed  to  discover  any  general 
principle  on  which  maximum  rates  have  been  fixed,  or 
on  which  the  few  articles  enumerated  in  the  special  Acts 
have  been  classified.  It  is  usually  provided  that  all 
articles  not  enumerated  may  be  charged  at  the  highest 
rate  authorised.  '  Manufactured  '  articles  are  usually, 
but  not  always,  enumerated  in  the  highest  class.    Where 


172  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

this  is  the  case  it  is  difficult  to  determine  the  particular 
class  to  which  such  article  belongs. 

"  The  classification  of  goods  is  very  imperfect,  and  no 
uniformity  in  classification  or  rating  is  observed  either 
as  between  the  Acts  of  different  companies  or  among  the 
various  special  Acts  of  the  same  company.  Almost 
every  railway  company  levies  rates  under  several  Acts 
applicable  to  different  portions  of  its  system,  and  in  some 
cases  reference  must  be  had  to  more  than  fifty  Acts  to 
determine  the  various  rates  the  Company  is  authorised 
to  charge." 

On  this  strong  appeal  the  Board  of  Trade  got  to  work, 
and  by  dint  of  long  and  patient  negotiation  with  the 
railway  companies,  a  scheme  of  rates  was  evolved  which, 
if  not  highly  scientific,  has  so  far  kept  the  peace  between 
the  railways  and  the  traders.  How  long  it  may  continue 
to  do  so  is  becoming  doubtful. 


CHAPTER   XV 

REGULAR  RATES  AND   FARES 

In  the  whole  history  of  British  railways  there  has  been 
no  more  puzzling  task  than  the  fixing  of  rates  and  fares. 
This  problem  was  partly  inherited  and  partly  created 
by  the  railways  themselves.  The  original  passenger 
fares  had  to  be  governed  more  or  less  by  those  of  the 
mail  coaches.  In  many  cases  these  fares  were  adopted 
bodily,  and  in  others  they  were  but  slightly  modified. 
From  the  same  source  the  three  classes  of  passengers 
were  derived.  The  first-class  carriage  was  a  close  imita- 
tion of  the  mail  coach.  Station  agents,  drivers,  guards 
and  porters,  were  all  christened  with  mail  coach  names. 
The  pioneer  railway  service  was  intended  at  first  to  be 
developed  on  mail  coach  lines.  The  primitive  trains 
were  meant  to  be  simply  road  vehicles  set  on  iron  rails. 

So  quite  naturally  and  spontaneously  the  mail  coach 
tariff  or  a  near  approach  to  it  passed  on  to  the  railway. 
But  it  did  not  long  serve  its  purpose.  Traffic  grew  and 
multiplied  at  such  a  rate  that  the  railways  prospered 
overmuch,  and  voices  were  soon  raised  against  them  and 
their  so-called  monopoly.  At  a  very  early  period  the 
Legislature  stepped  in  and  began  to  make  regulations 
in  the  interest  of  traders  and  the  public.  The  passenger 
service  claimed  first  attention,  and  for  many  years  it 
was  the  hobby  of  Select  Committees  and  the  House  of 
Commons.  They  were  always  doing  something  to  im- 
prove it  or  to  make  it  more  useful  to  the  public.  Among 
other  things  they  established  the  parliamentary  or  penny 
a  mile  rate,  which  ultimately  became  a  maximum  for 
95  per  cent,  of  railway  passengers.     They  also  decreed 

173 


174  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

that  at  least  one  train  per  day  each  way  should  stop  at 
all  stations. 

Within  twenty  years  from  the  birth  of  the  railway 
a  penny  a  mile  had  become  the  standard  third-class  fare, 
and  it  remains  so  in  principle,  though  excursion  and  other 
cheap  trains  have  made  rather  a  mockery  of  it  in  practice. 
From  the  establishment  of  the  parliamentary  train 
stopping  at  all  stations,  and  the  penny  a  mile  third-class 
fare,  Parliament  has  left  the  passenger  service  very  much 
alone.  Any  confusion  or  disorganisation  that  exists  in 
it  to-day  is  due  chiefly  to  the  railway  managers  them- 
selves. They  had  every  opportunity  to  frame  a  rational 
schedule  of  fares,  but  instead  of  doing  that  they  have 
vied  with  each  other  in  inventing  what  have  been  only 
too  correctly  though  sarcastically  called  "  freak  fares." 

With  goods  rates  the  railway  companies  have  had 
much  more  trouble.  Their  traffic  soon  outgrew  the 
primitive  range  of  the  canal  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
road  carrier  on  the  other.  The  industrial  development 
to  which  the  railways  gave  such  a  fillip  created  new 
products,  new  manufactures,  new  trades.  It  multiplied 
tenfold  the  commodities  which  were  offered  for  convey- 
ance.    Every  new  line  built  opened  up  a  new  industrial 

^-sarea  with  fresh  sources  of  traffic.      Dr.   Lardner,  the 
founder  of  the  science  of  railway  economics,  indulged 

""^  a  variety  of  curious  calculations  as  to  the  enlargement 
of  the  area  of  transportation  resulting  from  the  increased 
speed  of  the  railway  as  compared  with  the  road.  He  had 
an  ingenious  theory  that  the  lower  the  tariff  adopted, 

^^  the  greater  the  distance  to  which  goods  could  be  trans- 
y  ported,  and  consequently  the  larger  the  volume  of  traflfic 
that  would  be  obtained  by  the  railways.  This  opinion 
seems  to  have  been  shared  by  the  Railway  Commissioners 
of  the  day,  as  in  their  annual  report  dated  the  30th  June, 
1847,  they  reason  thus — 

"  The  average  distance  to  which  merchandise  was 
transported,  22  J  miles,  is  much  less  than  might  have  been 
expected,  or  than  would  have  taken  place  under  the 
operation  of  a  properly  graduated  tariff.  It  is  evident 
from  this  that  the  tariff  is  prohibitory  for  a  greater 


REGULAR  RATES  AND  FARES  176 

average  distance  than  about  20  miles.  It  would  be 
interesting,  if  we  possessed  the  requisite  data,  to  apply 
a  like  investigation  to  the  various  classes  of  merchandise, 
so  as  to  ascertain  what  classes  are  transported  to  the 
greatest  distances,  but  the  reports  supply  us  with  no 
data  for  this  purpose." 

Mr.  Acworth,  the  apostolic  successor  of  Dr.  Lardner, 
puts  the  same  idea  in  a  different  way.  In  his  opinion 
the  railways  drew  away  traffic  from  the  older  routes  by 
gradually  reaching  out  for  lower-grade  commodities  and 
cutting  the  existing  rates.  His  description  of  the  process 
by  which  they  descended  from  the  finer  to  the  coarser 
kinds  of  freight  will  we  fear  be  regarded  by  the  traders; 
of  to-day  as  past  history.  As  far  as  their  experience  goes  j 
the  lowering  of  rates  came  to  an  end  long  ago,  and  the 
tendency  is  now  the  other  way.  However,  it  may  have 
been  true  once,  and  consequently  it  has  still  a  certain 
amount  of  historical  interest — 

"  The  railway  begins  with  a  small  volume  of  high-class 
traffic  at  high  rates.  Its  constant  tendency  is  to  increase 
the  volume  of  traffic  by  successively  lower  rates,  tapping 
successively  lower  strata  of  traffic.  The  traffic  attracted 
by  such  rates  is  partly  drawn  from  previously  existing 
but  less  efficient  modes  of  conveyance,  partly  created 
by  new  railway  facilities.  As  the  traffic  increases  the 
average  rate  comes  down,  and  as  the  rate  comes  down 
the  traffic  increases.  And  so  the  reciprocal  process 
goes  on  up  to  the  point  where  the  railway  has  got  all 
the  traffic  it  can  afford  to  take."  ^ 

On  the  face  of  it  that  is  a  natural  and  plausible  theory 
of  the  evolution  of  railway  rates,  but  unfortunately  it 
was  not  one  which  the  railways  could  put  before  their 
customers.  They  could  not  cynically  boast  that  having 
captured  all  the  traffic  in  sight  there  was  no  more  need 
for  reductions.  So  they  had  to  cast  about  for  more 
humane  as  well  as  more  scientific  principles  of  rate-making. 
In  this  good  work  railway  managers  have  exhibited  great 
industry  and  versatility.  Many  and  various  are  the 
explanations  they  have  given  in  books  and  speeches,  as 
1  Acworth'a  Elements  of  Bailivay  Economics,  p.  64. 


176  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

well  as  in  evidence  before  Select  Committees,  of  the  true 
principles  on  which  rates  are  fixed.  The  most  com- 
prehensive is  Sir  George  Findlay's,  published  thirty 
years  ago — 

"  The  rates  are  governed  by  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  traffic,  the  pressure  of  competition  either  by  water 
or  by  a  rival  railway  route,  or  by  other  land  carriage, 
but  above  all  the  companies  have  regard  to  the  com- 
mercial value  of  the  commodity  and  the  rate  it  will  bear 
so  as  to  admit  of  its  being  produced  and  sold  in  a 
competing  market  at  a  fair  margin  of  profit.  The 
companies  each  do  their  best  to  meet  the  circumstances 
of  the  trade,  to  develop  the  resources  of  their  own 
particular  district,  and  to  encourage  the  competition  of 
markets,  primarily  no  doubt  in  their  own  interest  but 
nevertheless  greatly  to  the  advantage  of  the  community."  ^ 

Sir  George  Findlay's  definition  of  scientific  rate-making 
was  published  while  he  was  General  Manager  of  the 
London  and  North- Western  Railway.  It  was  heartily 
endorsed  on  various  occasions  by  his  friend  Mr.  Grierson, 
the  then  General  Manager  of  the  Great  Western  Railway. 
These  two  authorities  proclaimed  the  principle  of  "  what 
the  traffic  will  bear,"  and  tried  to  live  up  to  it.  Mr. 
Grierson  claimed  for  it  a  statutory  origin,  and  there  cer- 
tainly is  a  phrase  in  the  Railway  Clauses  Consolidation 
Act  of  1845  which  favours  his  contention.  "To  accom- 
modate rates  to  the  circumstances  of  the  traffic  "  is  only 
a  round-about  version  of  "  what  the  traffic  will  bear." 
The  passage  in  Mr.  Grierson 's  book  reads  well  from  the 
railway  point  of  view — 

"  If  their  sole  object  were  to  obtain  the  necessary 
revenue  they  might  cease  to  regard  the  effects  of  rates 
upon  the  interests  of  traders,  districts  or  ports,  and 
while  conforming  to  the  statutory  maxima  they  might 
levy  rates  detrimental  to  particular  kinds  of  traffic. 
Their  practice  has  been  altogether  different,  they  have 
sought  to  give  full  effect  to  the  intention  which  Parliament 
had  in  view  in  framing  the  rude  statutory  classifications. 
They  have  endeavoured  to  suit  the  charges  to  the  capacitj^^ 
1  Findlay's  Management  of  an  English  Railuxiy,  p.  206. 


REGULAR  RATES  AND  FARES  177 

of  the  traders,  and,  in  the  words  of  Section  90  of  the 
Railway  Clauses  Consolidation  Act  of  1845, '  to  accommo- 
date them  to  the  circumstances  of  the  traffic'  " 

Mr.  Grierson  was  not  content,  as  Sir  George  Findlay 
had  been,  simply  to  state  the  meaning  and  purpose  of  the 
much  disputed  motto,  "  what  the  traffic  will  bear." 
He  did  not  even  stop  at  claiming,  as  we  have  seen, 
statutory  sanction  for  it.  He  went  on  to  argue  that 
it  was  the  best  method  both  for  traders  and  the  public. 
Then  he  capped  his  case  by  showing  that  public  rates 
and  taxes  are  also  levied  on  the  principle  of  what  the 
traffic  will  bear — ^ 

"  Rightly  understood  this,  it  is  contended,  is  the  only 
fair  working  principle,  the  only  scientific  rule,  if  that 
phrase  has  any  clear  meaning.  It  is  only  another  way 
of  saying  that  rates  should  be  so  fixed  as  to  enable  a 
manufacturer  or  a  trader  and  the  railway  company  to 
obtain  a  reasonable  profit,  and  that  rates  should  ultimately 
be  determined  by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  The 
value  of  conveyance,  like  the  value  of  any  other  service, 
is  not  necessarily  what  it  costs,  but  what  it  is  worth  to 
him  who  wishes  his  goods  carried." 

Then   the   income-tax  analogy  is  cleverly  brought  in. 

"  An  endeavour  is  made  to  obtain  the  revenue  of  the 
coimtry  from  the  persons  who  can  best  afford  to  pay, 
and  to  levy  it  upon  articles  the  taxation  of  which  wiU, 
to  the  least  practicable  extent,  be  a  burden  on  the  trade 
of  the  country.  To  fix  railway  rates  on  any  other  principle 
than  that  described  above  would  be  much  like  raising 
the  national  revenue  from  all  persons  alike,  rich  or  poor, 
or  to  impose  the  customs  duties  and  excise  upon  all 
commodities,  whether  articles  of  luxury  or  necessity,  and 
irrespective  of  their  value." 

The  reader  need  hardly  be  reminded  that  the  above 
extract  was  written  in  the  Arcadian  days  which  were 
brought  to  a  sudden  and  violent  end  by  the  advent  of 
Lloyd  George  finance.  The  discriminatory  taxation 
which  Mr.  Grierson  considered  so  good  both  for  national 
and  railway  revenues  has  now  been  carried  much  farther 
1  Grierson'?  Bailway  RateSy  English  and  Foreign,  p.  70. 
N 


178  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

than  he  would  have  approved.  It  has  therefore  become 
a  doubtful  model  for  the  fixing  of  railway  rates.  Let  us 
turn  from  Mr.  Grierson  to  another  expert,  Mr.  Ac  worth. 
In  this  as  in  all  other  railway  puzzles,  Mr.  Ac  worth  is 
pre-eminently  philosophical.  He  can  always  demon- 
strate to  us  that  whatever  is  is  right,  and  could  not  be 
right  if  it  were  otherwise.  Observe  how  ingeniously 
he  proves  that  "  what  the  traffic  will  bear  "  is  a  principle 
of  moderation  and  not  of  extortion — 

"  Translated  into  railway  language  the  principle  means 
this — ^the  total  railway  revenue  is  made  up  of  rates  which 
in  the  case  of  traffic  unable  to  bear  a  high  rate  are  so 
low  as  to  cover  hardly  more  than  actual  out-of-pocket 
expenses,  which  in  the  case  of  medium-class  traffic  cover 
both  out-of-pocket  expenses  and  a  proportionate  part  of 
the  unapportioned  cost,  and  which  finally  in  the  case 
of  high-class  traffic,  after  covering  that  traffic's  own 
out-of-pocket  expenses,  leaves  a  large  and  disproportionate 
surplus  available  as  a  contribution  towards  the  un- 
apportioned expenses  of  the  low-class  traffic,  which  such 
traffic  itself  could  not  afford  to  bear.  This  in  principle 
and  in  outline  is  the  system  of  charging  what  the  traffic 
can  bear.'* 

An  intelligent  railway  shareholder  reading  that  semi- 
official defence  of  railway  rating  will  be  first  struck  by 
the  admission  that  certain  classes  of  freight  are  carried 
at  rates  which  do  not  cover  working  expenses,  while 
other  classes  have  to  be  charged  super  rates  in  order  to 
make  good  the  loss  on  the  imremunerative  rates.  This 
insidious  though  perhaps  unavoidable  power  of  dis- 
crimination has  been  carried  much  farther  by  the 
American  than  by  the  British  railways,  and  the  American 
justification  of  it  is  on  much  the  same  lines  as  Mr. 
Ac  worth's.  Or  conversely,  it  might  be  said  that 
Mr.  Ac  worth  has  adopted  the  American  theory  and 
apphed  it  to  British  conditions.  In  its  own  country 
it  has  had  many  expositors,  but  it  will  be  generaUy 
agreed  that  Judge  Cooley  and  Professor  Hadley  head  the 
list.  Judge  Cooley  was  chairman  of  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission,  and  had  occasion  to  deal  with 


REGULAR  RATES  AND  FARES  179 

this  question  in  his  first  annual  report.  He  came  out 
strongly  in  favour  of  low-grade  freight  being  favoured 
at  the  expense  of  the  higher  classes — 

"  To  take  each  class  of  freight  by  itself  and  measure 
the  reasonableness  of  charges  by  reference  to  the  cost  of 
transporting  that  particular  class,  though  it  might  seem 
abstractly  just,  would  neither  be  practicable  for  the 
carriers  nor  consistent  with  the  public  interest.  The 
public  interest  is  best  served  when  the  rates  are  so  ap- 
portioned as  to  encourage  the  largest  practicable  exchange 
of  products  between  different  sections  of  our  coimtry, 
and  with  foreign  countries.  This  can  only  be  done  by 
making  value  an  important  consideration,  and  by  placing 
upon  the  higher  classes  of  freight  some  share  of  the 
burden  that  on  a  relatively  equal  apportionment,  if 
service  alone  were  considered,  would  fall  upon  those  of 
less  value.  With  this  method  of  arranging  tariffs  little 
fault  is  found,  and  perhaps  none  at  all  by  persons  who 
consider  the  subject  from  the  standpoint  of  public 
interest." 

The  proposition  can  be  stated  in  many  different  ways, 
all  leading  to  the  same  conclusion.  Professor  Hadley's 
argument,  it  will  be  noted,  takes  even  a  wider  sweep 
than  Judge  Cooley's  or  Mr.  Ac  worth's.  He  also  differs 
from  them  in  giving  us  a  glimpse  of  the  other  side  of  the 
question — 

"  Thus  there  has  gradually  grown  up  a  system  of  rates 
favouring  certain  classes  of  goods,  certain  localities  or 
certain  individuals.  It  was  found  that  by  lowering  the 
rates  for  cheap  goods  a  large  traffic  was  developed.  It 
was  found  that  by  lowering  the  rates  at  competitive 
points  a  large  traffic  might  be  secured  which  would 
otherwise  go  by  other  routes.  It  was  found,  or  at  any 
rate  it  appeared,  that  by  lowering  rates  to  certain 
individuals  a  road  increased  its  returns  better  than  by 
a  general  lowering  of  rates.  This  constitutes  the  system 
of  charging  '  what  the  traffic  will  bear.'  The  ordinary 
objections  to  it  are  obvious  at  once.  It  is  generally 
believed  that  the  less-favoured  shippers  are  taxed  m 
order  that  the  raikoad  may  do  business  for  others  at 


180  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

unreasonably  low  rates,  that  in  any  other  business  the 
loss  of  competition  would  prevent  such  abuses,  and  that  in 
the  absence  of  any  effective  competition  laws  should  be 
passed  forbidding  the  railroads  making  a  great  deal 
more  profit  on  one  part  of  its  business  than  it  does  on 
another.     This  is  the  aim  of  anti -discrimination  bills." 

Briefly  put  the  governing  principle  of  railway  manage- 
ment at  the  present  day  is  to  obtain  a  living  return  on 
the  capital  cost  of  the  railway,  and  to  divide  this  as 
equitably  as  possible  over  the  various  classes  and  grades 
of  freight  from  which  it  has  to  be  drawn.  For  such  a 
promiscuous  levy  there  can  be  no  general  rule.  It  may 
in  some  cases  be  scientific,  but  in  many  others  it  must  be 
arbitrary.  While  there  may  be  in  it  many  individual 
anomalies  and  inequalities,  on  the  whole  it  may  be  as 
fair  and  just  as  the  very  difficult  circumstances  permit. 
What  is  really  most  needed  is  more  elastic  means  of 
negotiation  between  the  railways  and  the  traders. 

In  justice  to  the  railways  it  should  always  be  remem- 
bered that  from  their  very  birth  they  have  been  hampered 
in  their  rate-making  by  outside  interference  and  dictation 
of  every  possible  sort.  It  was  Parliament  and  other 
public  authorities  who  invented  these  legal  bugbears — 
maximum  and  minimum  rates ;  the  onus  of  proving 
every  proposed  change  of  rates,  however  trifling,  to  be 
reasonable ;  the  parliamentary  passenger  fare,  the 
workman's  train,  and  many  other  encroachments  on  the 
freedom  of  railway  administration .  To  all  these  problems, 
difficult  enough  in  themselves,  the  railway  manager 
comes  with  his  hands  tied  and  his  motives  suspected. 

Conversely  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  if  traders  accus- 
tomed to  conduct  their  own  business  on  the  simplest 
possible  lines  get  hopelessly  fogged  over  railway  rates. 
In  the  first  place  there  are  no  published  tariffs  which  he 
can  keep  on  his  desk  and  refer  to  as  occasion  requires. 
Every  time  that  he  has  a  new  commodity  to  ship  or  a 
new  market  to  reach  he  must  go  to  the  railway  station 
to  make  personal  inquiries.  He  begins  with  the  station- 
master,  who  refers  him  to  the  Goods  department,  where 
he  at  last  discovers  a  wonderful  expert  known  as  the 


REGULAR  RATES  AND  FARES  181 

rate  clerk.  When  this  gentleman  learns  his  business  he 
produces  from  a  capacious  desk  bimdles  of  well-thumbed 
rate-books. 

One  set  of  these  is  for  "  local  "  rates  and  another  for 
"  foreign  "  rates,  local  meaning  traffic  confined  to  the 
company's  own  line,  and  foreign  applying  to  through 
traffic  over  one  or  more  other  lines.  A  third  set  is 
distinguished  as  "  Clearing  House  rates,"  over  which 
the  individual  railways  have  no  control.  In  order  to 
ascertain  any  particular  rate,  half-a-dozen  intricate 
operations  may  have  to  be  gone  through.  First  the 
article  in  question  must  be  traced  in  the  classified  lists, 
of  which  there  are  eight  (A,  B,  C  and  1,  2,  3,  4,  5),  each 
of  them  containing  hundreds  of  separate  items.  They 
started  in  1847  with  about  300  articles,  and  now  they 
have  grown  to  over  7,500.  As  if  that  were  not  complica- 
tion enough,  900  Acts  of  Parliament  have  been  required 
to  authorise  them. 

The  article  having  been  identified,  the  next  difficulty 
is  to  ascertain  the  mileage  of  the  proposed  journey.  Then 
the  rate  has  to  be  calculated  in  sections,  so  much  per 
mile  for  the  first  twenty  miles  or  any  part  thereof,  so 
much  per  mile  for  the  next  thirty  miles,  so  much  per  mile 
for  the  next  fifty  miles,  and  so  much  per  mile  for  the 
remainder  of  the  distance,  whatever  it  may  be.  Both  the 
trader  and  the  rate  clerk  are  to  be  pitied  when  they  go 
floundering  through  this  maze  of  classifications,  mileages 
and  rates.  Even  when  they  emerge  from  it  their  explora- 
tions are  not  finished.  The  terminal  charges  have  still 
to  be  settled,  and  these  vary  not  only  with  the  character 
of  the  goods,  but  with  the  station  and  the  extent  of  the 
terminal  service. 

There  are  two  classes  of  terminal  service  recognised  by 
our  latest  railway  legislation — first  the  so-called  station 
terminal,  which  is  supposed  to  represent  the  rental  of 
the  station  buildings,  yards,  etc.,  and  secondly  the 
service  terminal,  which  covers  the  cost  of  handling  the 
goods.  It  is  subdivided  into  four  heads— loading,  un- 
loading, covering  and  imcovering.  Thus  on  an  article 
carried  more  than  a  hundred  miles,  and  having  aD  the 


182  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

terminal  charges  to  pay,  there  may  be  nine  different 
items  to  work  out  and  add  together — four  for  weights 
and  distances  and  five  for  terminals.  And  that  does  not 
include  collection  and  delivery,  for  which  two  additional 
charges  will  have  to  be  made  ! 

It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  when  this  labour  of 
Hercules  has  been  completed  the  trader  and  the  rate 
clerk  will  not  find  themselves  in  agreement  as  to  the 
result.  The  trader  will  then  have  to  choose  between 
submitting  to  a  rate  which  is  a  Chinese  puzzle  to  him 
and  fighting  it.  In  the  latter  event  he  may  begin 
economically  with  an  appeal  to  the  Board  of  Trade  for 
its  advice  and  mediation.  The  Board  of  Trade  experts 
are  always  ready  to  act  the  part  of  mutual  friend  in 
such  disputes,  but  they  have  no  legal  authority  to  enforce 
their  decisions.  If  the  point  at  issue  is  important  it 
will  have  to  go  to  the  Railway  Commissioners,  who  have 
so  far  not  proved  themselves  to  be  an  ideal  commercial 
tribunal. 

British  railway  rates,  like  so  many  other  British 
institutions,  are  obviously  suffering  from  over-doses  of 
parliamentary  law.  They  smack  of  the  Select  Committee 
room,  and  of  the  forensic  battles  which  have  been  waged 
there  over  matters  which  the  railways  and  the  traders 
might  have  settled  among  themselves  with  half  the  amoimt 
of  trouble  and  less  than  half  of  the  expense.  With  less 
Philadelphia  law  and  more  plain  business  sense,  that 
jungle  of  rates  and  classifications  might  have  been  to  a 
large  extent  avoided.  Instead  of  it  we  might  have  had 
railway  charges  made  as  simple  and  intelligible  as  ocean 
freights.  Why  indeed  should  there  be  such  a  contrast 
between  the  two  ? 


CHAPTER  XVI 

EXCEPTIONAL  RATES   AND   SERVICES 

Traders  and  railway  officials  regard  questions  of  rates 
from  two  opposite  points  of  view.  The  trader  thinks 
of  them  as  arbitrary  creations  of  official  authority,  while 
the  railway  manager  treats  them  as  statutory  regulations. 
They  are,  in  fact,  something  between  these  two  extremes. 
Both  the  arbitrary  and  the  statutory  elements  have 
entered  largely  into  them,  so  largely  indeed  that  it  is 
now  impossible  to  distinguish  them.  Few  things  have 
had  a  more  mixed  origin  than  British  railway  rates. 
The  earliest  of  them  were  established  by  special  Acts  of 
Parliament.  Schedules  of  maximum  rates  were  deemed 
as  essential  a  part  of  a  primitive  railway  Act  as  of  a 
turnpike  or  a  canal  Act.  These  were  the  models  on 
which  the  first  railway  tariffs  were  framed. 

Later  on  tentative  efforts  were  made  by  the  House  of 
Commons  to  classify  the  principal  kinds  of  traffic  and 
to  apply  uniform  rates  to  them.  After  many  Select 
Committees  and  Royal  Commissions  had  worked  inter- 
mittently on  this  ever-growing  task,  a  comprehensive 
scheme  of  classification  and  rating  was  evolved  about 
twenty  years  ago.  In  1888  the  various  railways  in  the 
United  Kingdom  sent  in  to  the  Board  of  Trade  their 
proposed  schedules  of  classes  and  rates.  In  1894  these 
were  all  embodied  in  an  Act  of  Parliament  which  continues 
to  be  our  fundamental  law  of  railway  rates  to  the  present 
day.  It  has  been  supplemented  and  elaborated  by  a 
long  series  of  judicial  decisions  which  are  continually 
being  added  to.  No  branch  of  our  commercial  life  is 
in  such  a  state  of  flux  as  that  administered  by  the 
Railway  and  Canal  Commissioners. 

183 


184  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

The  Clearing  House  recognises  three  kinds  of  freight, 
and  provides  for  each  of  them  a  scale  of  rates.  The 
first  is  the  parcel  traffic  by  goods  trains,  the  second, 
"  smalls,"  or  consignments  not  exceeding  3  cwts.,  and  the 
third,  heavy  trafl&c  (A,  B  and  C).  "  A  "  is  the  mineral 
class,  "  B  "  is  for  bricks,  lime,  etc.,  and  "  C  "  for  such 
things  as  cement,  which  have  to  be  carried  in  bags. 
These  are  all  station  to  station  rates,  exclusive  of  collec- 
tion and  delivery.  They  are,  of  course,  much  lower  than 
the  1  to  5  classes  which  are  distinguished  as  "  shed 
goods . "  The  latter  always  include  collection  and  delivery , 
though  a  scale  of  rebates  is  provided  for  those  who  wish 
to  do  these  services  themselves. 

In  qualification  of  the  general  statement  that  British 
railways  have  little  or  no  latitude  in  their  rate-making, 
it  should  be  added  that  they  can  and  do  give  special 
terms  for  large  consignments.  The  A,  B  and  C  scales 
are  specially  intended  for  wholesalers.  In  A  and  B  a 
minimum  of  4  tons  is  required,  and  in  C  a  minimum  of 
2  tons.  But  there  may  be  shipments  running  up  to 
hundreds  of  tons,  cargoes  of  grain,  for  instance,  being 
discharged  from  foreign  steamers.  The  railways  have 
power  to  contract  for  such  business  very  much  below  the 
regular  rates  for  ordinary  quantities.  In  class  goods 
(1  to  5)  there  are  a  good  many  commodities  with  a  sufii- 
ciently  heavy  tonnage  to  warrant  concessions  from  the 
official  rates;  which,  of  course,  give  the  big  trader  a 
considerable  advantage  over  the  small  one. 

In  these  days  of  mammoth  factories  and  stores, 
universal  providers,  and  co-operative  societies  with  tens 
of  thousands  of  members,  there  must  be  many  traders  able 
to  drive  a  good  bargain  with  the  railway  companies.  A 
General  Manager  once  informed  a  Select  Committee  that 
80  per  cent,  of  the  business  in  the  North  of  England  was 
done  at  exceptional  rates.  Such  rates  cannot  be  ob- 
jected to  because,  though  probably  much  below  those 
levied  on  smaller  traders,  they  are  within  the  letter  of 
the  law.  The  small  trader  would  also  get  them  if  he 
could  send  equally  large  consignments.  The  principle 
is  analogous  to  that  on  which   gas  companies  reduce 


EXCEPTIONAL  RATES  AND  SERVICES     186 

their  charge  per  1000  feet,  as  the  amount  consumed 
increases. 

At  the  lower  end  of  the  scale  still  more  surprising 
exceptions  are  to  be  found  to  general  rules.  Passenger 
train  parcels,  for  instance,  are  greatly  favoured  to  the 
prejudice  of  more  profitable  business.  For  their  benefit 
tariffs  are  set  aside,  terminal  charges  are  ignored,  and 
special  through  services  are  organised  which  on  the  face 
of  them  cannot  be  remunerative.  Often  they  must  be 
very  much  the  reverse.  The  whole  parcel  service,  with 
its  extensive  and  costly  network  of  collection  and  delivery 
vans,  may  be  safely  challenged  as  a  losing  concern.  The 
meagre  accounts  and  statistics  hitherto  published  by  the 
railways  do  not  furnish  any  definite  proof  on  the  point, 
but  it  would  seem  impossible  on  the  face  of  it  that  a 
service  involving  such  a  waste  of  power,  and  of  which 
each  railway  company  can  have  such  a  very  small  share, 
can  ever  be  very  profitable. 

It  is  a  characteristic  of  the  exceptional  rate  that  it  is 
generally  accompanied  by  exceptionally  good  service. 
This  is  quite  in  accordance  with  a  similar  peculiarity 
in  the  passenger  service  which  allots  quicker  and  more 
comfortable  trains  to  the  cheap  tripper  than  to  the 
regular  customer  of  the  railway  who  has  to  pay  full 
fare.  There  are  many  different  catchwords  in  use  among 
railway  officials  for  advertising  their  exceptional  services, 
'*  Rapid  transit  "  is  one  of  the  chief  favourites.  It  has 
the  changes  rung  upon  it  in  railway  advertisements. 
It  is  proclaimed  in  glaring  posters  at  village  stations 
which  furnish  hardly  a  single  truck-load  of  freight  in  a 
week.  All  over  East  Yorkshire  may  be  read  the  following 
announcement — 

"HULL  TO  SCOTLAND 

Goods  collected  nightly  and  delivered  in  Edinburgh  and 
Glasgow  the  following  morning." 

Of  late  the  praises  of  the  British  lightning  collection 
and  delivery  system  have  not  been  sung  quite  as  lustily 
as  they  used  to  be,  but  there  was  a  time  when  every 


186  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

British  railway  manager  of  any  note  joined  in  them. 
We  may  start  with  the  London  and  North-Westem  and 
go  all  through  the  list  without  encountering  a  single 
discordant  note.  **  Rapid  dispatch  "  was  the  fetish  of 
the  generation  which  had  Lord  Stalbridge,  Sir  George 
Findlay  and  Mr.  Grierson  for  its  representative  railway 
men.  On  one  occasion  Lord  Stalbridge  thus  addressed 
the  London  and  North-Westem  shareholders  on  this 
popular  theme — 

"  In  this  country  a  merchant  in  Manchester,  Liverpool, 
Leeds,  York  or  any  other  of  the  big  towns,  feels  that  he 
must  receive  in  the  morning  the  invoice  of  goods  awaiting 
delivery  that  left  London  only  the  night  before,  whereas 
in  France  and  the  rest  of  the  Continent  they  have  never 
less  than  three  days  allowed  for  delivery,  and  at  some 
distances  five,  six  or  seven  days.  If  goods  could  be  kept 
that  length  of  time  in  this  coimtry,  so  that  full  train 
loads  could  be  made  up  and  dispatched  at  convenient 
times,  the  goods  traffic  could  be  conducted  more  cheaply, 
but  it  would  be  impossible  for  railway  companies  to 
reduce  rates  if  they  had  to  deliver  with  the  expedition 
prevailing  at  the  present  time.'* 

But  is  it  absolutely  necessary  that  they  should?  Is 
the  game  worth  the  candle,  and  as  the  expense  of  it 
steadily  increases  with  dearer  coal  and  dearer  labour,  will 
it  not  become  less  and  less  worth  the  candle  ?  Sir  George 
Findlay's  picture  of  it  is  doubtless  fascinating  from  the 
railway  manager's  point  of  view,  but  one  can  imagine 
a  less  costly  picture  being  more  welcome  to  railway 
shareholders.  It  is  fearful  to  contemplate  how  much 
money  which  might  have  been  available  for  dividends 
has  vanished  in  the  heroic  attempt  of  the  railways  to 
supply  every  corner  of  the  three  langdoms  with  "  goods 
per  return  of  post." 

In  his  Working  and  Management  of  an  English  Bailtmy 
Sir  George  Findlay  says — 

"  Groods  are  punctually  collected,  carried  hundreds 
of  miles  between  all  the  most  important  towns  in  England 
and  delivered  to  their  consignees  within  the  day  of 
twenty-four   hours;    and   even   between    England   and 


EXCEPTIONAL  RATES  AND  SERVICES     187 

places  in  Scotland  and  the  seaport  towns  of  Ireland 
within  forty-eight  hours.  The  Yorkshire  manufacturer 
who  attends  the  London  wool  sales  to-day  may  have  the 
wool  he  purchases  in  his  warehouse  to-morrow.  The 
Lancashire  cotton  spinner  will  buy  cotton  in  Liverpool 
one  day  and  it  may  be  in  actual  consumption  in  his  mill 
the  next.  Dead  meat  from  Scotland  and  from  abroad, 
poultry,  butter  and  eggs  from  Ireland,  vegetables,  fruit 
and  all  perishable  goods  of  the  kind,  are  dispatched  by 
the  growers  with  the  narrowest  possible  margin  of  time 
to  catch  a  particular  market.  And  all  this  is  done  with 
the  utmost  certainty  and  punctuality." 

In  another  panegyric  of  rapid  dispatch  we  read — 

"  Your  modern  business  man  wires  his  manufacturer, 
who  may  be  200  miles  or  more  distant,  in  the  afternoon 
for  certain  goods  to  be  dispatched  to  him,  and  looks  upon 
it  as  something  extraordinary  if  they  are  not  at  his 
premises  waiting  his  arrival  on  the  following  morning." 

Where  the  wonderful  genius  of  this  feat  comes  in  it  may 
not  be  very  easy  to  discover.  The  Parcel  Post  is  quite 
as  clever  at  it  as  any  of  the  railways,  and  as  cheap.  It 
is  still  a  question  if  such  business  might  not  have  become 
better  organised  and  developed  had  it  been  left  in  the 
hands  of  Pickford  and  the  other  public  carriers.  At 
first  they  did  the  carrjdng  on  the  railways  as  they  had 
been  doing  it  for  years  before  on  the  roads.  They 
collected  goods,  hauled  them  over  the  railway  in  their 
own  wagons,  and  delivered  them  at  the  other  end.  They 
performed,  in  fact,  the  rudimentary  functions  of  an 
American  express  company,  and  had  they  been  left 
alone,  that  is  the  form  they  would  probably  have  assumed. 
But  when  the  railway  companies  resolved  to  become 
carriers  themselves  and  to  do  their  own  hauling,  they 
would  brook  no  competition. 

In  vain  the  carrying  agents  appealed  to  the  courts 
for  protection.  They  got  judgments  on  various  points 
against  the  companies,  among  others  one  afl&rming  their 
right  to  send  what  were  called  "packed  parcels,"  that 
is,  a  number  of  small  parcels  for  the  same  destination 
packed   together.     The    companies    gradually   squeezed 


188  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

them  out  by  making  their  business  as  unpleasant  as 
possible  for  them,  and  throwing  every  obstacle  in  their 
way.  While  the  company's  own  parcels  went  out  by 
the  night  trains  and  were  delivered  in  Birmingham  and 
Manchester  next  morning,  the  carrying  agents'  parcels 
were  held  back  till  next  day.  This  was  another  original 
cause  of  the  quick  goods  service.  After  the  carrying 
agents  had  withdrawn  it  was  kept  up  until  in  due  time 
the  legend  grew  around  it  that  the  British  trader  was 
always  in  a  hurry  for  his  goods. 

A  policy  so  foolish  and  wasteful  was  bound  to  be 
abused,  and  in  due  time  the  abuses  appeared.  Sheer 
speed  is  a  sort  of  competition  that  develops  recklessness, 
and  sometimes  also  unscrupulousness.  When  it  was 
carried  so  far  that  the  poorer  railways  could  not  stand 
it,  mutual  recriminations  began.  The  Great  Eastern 
Chairman,  Lord  Claud  Hamilton,  took  his  shareholders 
into  the  secret  and  gave  them  a  few  examples  of  what 
the  "  rapid  dispatch  "  craze  had  come  to.  At  one  of 
his  half-yearly  meetings  in  1906  he  thus  described  to 
them  the  latest  instance  of  it — 

"  Hitherto  it  has  been  the  custom  in  England  to  carry 
perishable  goods  by  passenger  trains  at  passenger  rates, 
but  one  company,  thinking  they  could  filch  a  little  traffic 
away  from  a  competitor,  started  rimning  express  goods 
trains  at  goods  rates,  which  means  a  loss  of  something 
like  20  per  cent.  In  addition,  these  trains  could  not  be 
rim  at  the  rate  at  which  they  go,  namely,  about  45  miles 
an  hour,  unless  they  are  furnished  with  continuous 
brakes.  We  foimd  that  one  of  our  competitors  was 
running  these  trains  in  our  district  and  filching  from  us 
a  good  deal  of  our  traffic.  We  remonstrated,  but  remon- 
strance appeared  to  be  of  no  avail.  We  could  not  afford 
to  sit  still  and  see  our  traffic  gradually  taken  away  from 
us,  and  so  we  have  been  forced,  much  against  our  inclina- 
tion and  against  your  interest,  to  have  some  of  our  goods 
trains  fitted  up  with  continuous  brakes  in  order  that  we 
may  stop  this  competition  on  the  part  of  our  adversary. 
Now  that  has  been  money  very  badly  spent,  but  what 
were  we  to  do  ?  " 


EXCEPTIONAL  RATES  AND  SERVICES     189 

Railway  shareholders  can  now  read  such  confessions 
with  the  consoling  thought  that  they  are  past  history. 
But  if  reckless  and  suicidal  rivalry  has  been  at  last 
checked,  can  we  be  sure  that  the  extravagant  spirit 
which  it  fostered  has  also  been  eradicated  ?  Moreover, 
competition  has  not  been  the  only  cause  of  exceptional 
rates  and  services.  Very  slight  inquiry  into  their  history 
will  show  that  they  spring  from  a  variety  of  sources, 
many  of  them  legitimate  enough,  and  some  even  com- 
mendable. But  the  public  hear  less  about  these  than 
about  the  illegitimate  causes — competition,  bad  manage- 
ment and  so  forth.  The  legitimate  and  commendable 
causes  have,  however,  played  a  much  larger  part  in  the 
development  of  our  railway  system  than  the  others. 
Their  most  usual  objects  have  been  to  open  up  new 
sources  of  traffic,  by  increasing  the  volume  of  traffic  to 
lower  the  cost  of  operation,  to  promote  local  trade,  to 
enable  towns  in  their  territory  to  reach  markets  from 
which  they  would  otherwise  be  shut  out,  to  make  fuller 
and  better  use  of  their  plant  and  rolling  stock. 

Apart  from  commercial  reasons  there  may  often  be 
economic  causes  for  exceptional  rates.  In  wheat-growing 
countries  like  Canada  and  the  United  States  the  failure 
of  a  crop  is  considered  to  entitle  the  farmers  to  all  the 
help  the  railways  can  give  them  in  the  way  of  special 
rates  not  only  for  what  they  ship  out,  but  for  the  supplies 
they  have  to  bring  in.  Again,  with  a  new  colony  or 
a  new  industry  it  may  be  advisable  to  grant  special  rates 
for  a  time  until  it  can  afford  to  pay  full  tariff  rates.  Or 
when  traffic  is  going  too  much  one  way  and  a  large 
proportion  of  wagons  are  coming  back  empty,  it  may  be 
worth  while  to  accept  very  low  rates  for  back  loading. 
This,  in  fact,  is  one  of  the  most  practical  tests  of  good 
management — the  small  proportion  of  empty  running. 

The  back-loading  question  has  been  very  well  illus- 
trated by  Professor  Hadley — 

"  One  of  the  most  effective  devices  in  this  matter,  was 
the  system  of  '  back  loading.'  To  return  a  car  empty 
is  a  great  waste  of  power.  In  some  cases  it  is  a  necessity- 
cattle  cars  and  oil  cars,  for  instance,  can  as  a  rule  carry 


190  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

a  load  but  one  way.  In  those  cases  the  rate  must  cover 
the  cost  of  moving  the  cars  full  one  way  and  empty  the 
other  before  the  rate  begins  to  be  a  pajdng  one.  For 
a  long  time  it  was  so  with  nearly  all  cars  employed  in 
the  carriage  of  grain.  Gradually  our  railroad  managers 
awoke  to  the  fact  that  for  obtaining  goods  to  fill  such 
cars  any  rate  was  a  paying  rate  when  it  would  cover  the 
difference  between  hauling  them  empty  and  hauling  them 
full — provided  that  such  rates  developed  additional 
business  which  could  be  obtained  on  no  other  terms." 

But  in  the  end  "  back  loading  "  did  not  prove  an 
unqualified  boon.  It  was  one  of  the  causes  of  the  rate 
wars  which  at  a  later  period  reduced  three-fourths  of  the 
American  roads  to  bankruptcy,  and  robbed  British 
bondholders  to  the  tune  of  millions  sterling.  By  degrees 
the  **  back-loading  "  rates  were  under  pressure  of  fierce 
competition  extended  to  regular  freight,  and  all  the  rates 
were  pulled  down  to  their  level.  This  is  precisely  the 
danger  we  have  to  fear  from  the  cheap  trip  mania  of  our 
own  railway  managers.  So  far  they  have  held  up  their 
regular  fares  through  sheer  conservatism,  but  at  the 
expense  of  their  regular  train  traffic.  They  have  to 
steer  between  the  Scylla  of  lower  fares  and  the  Charybdis 
of  fewer  passengers. 

Nevertheless  the  "  load  up  at  any  price  "  policy  has 
been  advocated  even  by  British  railway  managers. 
Mr.  Grierson  was  a  stout  defender  of  it  and  of 
"  differentials  "  generally.  In  the  following  passage  he 
makes  full  use  of  the  American  argument — 

"  The  fact  is  that  differential  rates  have  arisen  in  no 
small  degree  out  of  the  same  causes  as  have  necessitated 
a  classification  of  goods.  Goods  of  small  intrinsic  value 
will  not  be  conveyed  at  all  unless  at  low  rates ;  only  on 
special  terms  can  such  goods  produced  at  a  great  distance 
be  brought  to  market.  ...  To  carry  traffic  at  a  rate 
3delding  a  small  profit  is  better  for  a  railway  company 
than  to  have  its  permanent  way  for  many  hours  unused 
and  its  plant  not  fully  employed.  It  may  be  expedient 
to  accept  traffic  producing  only  a  small  percentage  of 
profit  if  it  can  be  got  on  no  better  terms.     Such  traffic 


EXCEPTIONAL  RATES  AND  SERVICES     191 

will  at  least  help  to  defray  the  fixed  charges  which  must 
be  incurred  whether  it  is  carried  or  not." 

When  all  reasonable  allowance  has  been  made  for 
the  legitimate  causes  of  exceptional  rates  and  services, 
a  considerable  number  will  remain  for  which  no  such 
defence  can  be  made.  A  host  of  them  appear  to  be  due 
to  mistaken  policy,  and  of  all  the  mistakes  of  this  sort 
which  our  railway  administrators  have  committed  the 
"  collection  and  delivery "  system  as  now  conducted 
is  the  one  that  most  urgently  needs  to  be  inquired  into. 

After  fighting  long  and  costly  battles  in  Parliament 
for  maximum  rates,  terminal  charges  and  other  rights 
which  they  never  meant  to  take  fuU  advantage  of,  they 
wheeled  round  on  themselves  and  scattered  abroad 
concessions  far  more  liberal  than  the  public  would  ever 
have  expected,  much  less  demanded  of  them.  In  this 
prodigal  mood  they  created  new  services  which  practically 
ignored  terminal  charges  and  all  other  legal  extras. 
One  of  them  was  the  now  popular  if  not  very  profitable 
collection  and  delivery  service.  It  introduced  a  com- 
bined rate  which  included  not  only  haulage  and  terminals, 
but  threw  in  free  collection  and  delivery.  Mr.  Ac  worth's 
account  of  it  may  be  taken  as  semi-ofiicial — 

"  The  rates  for  these  classes  were  known  as  C  and  D 
(collection  and  delivery)  rates,  because  they  included 
not  only  carriage  on  the  railway,  but  also  collection 
beforehand  from  the  consignor  and  delivery  afterwards 
to  the  consignee  if  within  a  reasonable  distance.  They 
were  charged,  to  use  the  French  phrase,  *  without  condi- 
tion of  tonnage,'  except  that  for  consignments  less  than 
600  lb.  a  surcharge  was  made  beyond  the  regular  tonnage 
rate.  The  goods  in  the  numbered  classes  (1  to  5)  usually 
required  to  be  protected  from  the  weather  in  transit 
and  to  be  loaded  and  unloaded  under  cover,  consequently 
they  were  often  known  as  *  shed  goods.'  Moreover,  the 
service  of  loading  and  unloading  was  performed  by  the 
company,  and  the  cost  of  it  included  in  the  gross  rate 
charged."  . 

This  is  obviously  the  sort  of  traffic  that  gives  the 
railways  a  maximum  amount  of  trouble  and  puts  them 


192  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

to  a  maximum  of  expense,  but  does  not  by  any  means 
produce  a  maximum  of  revenue.  Comparatively  high 
charges  would  be  needed  to  make  it  self-supporting.  If 
some  "  collection  and  delivery  "  rates  be  high,  the  majority 
of  them  are  the  reverse.  They  certainly  do  not  leave 
a  large  surplus  toward  the  general  expense  and  up-keep 
of  the  railway.  It  is  now  admitted  even  at  shareholders' 
meetings  that  too  much  is  being  spent  on  the  carting 
service,  especially  in  large  cities.  In  London  it  has  for 
years  been  very  much  overdone,  and  the  best  of  the 
railway  reforms  now  in  progress  is  the  curtailment  of  the 
railway  traffic  which  vies  with  motor  buses  and  taxicabs 
in  pushing  all  other  kinds  of  traffic  off  the  streets. 

On  the  face  of  it  collecting  a  parcel,  say,  at  the  East 
End  of  London,  carting  it  to  a  goods  depot  perhaps 
eight  or  nine  miles  off,  carrjring  it  by  train  to  Glasgow, 
Edinburgh,  or  some  other  city  three  or  four  hundred 
miles  off,  and  there  carting  it  again  several  miles  to 
its  destination,  cannot  be  a  lucrative  business.  To  judge 
by  the  frantic  endeavours  which  are  now  being  made 
by  the  directors  of  the  London  trunk  lines  to  economise 
in  their  carting  department,  the  profit  and  loss  account 
can  hardly  have  been  satisfactory.  We  may  doubt  if  it 
has  been  for  years  past.  Apparently  the  shareholders 
have  begun  to  look  into  it  for  themselves,  and  they  find 
a  good  deal  to  think  about. 

This  policy  of  the  railway  companies  in  competing 
with  the  parcel  service  of  the  Post  Office  might  weU 
have  been  challenged  long  ago.  Its  folly  should  be 
obvious  almost  at  a  glance.  The  advantage  which  the 
Post  Office  had  over  the  railways  in  possessing  a  collection 
and  delivery  service  which  covers  the  whole  United 
Kingdom  far  outweighed  anything  the  railways  could 
gain  on  the  mere  cost  of  train  haulage.  This,  in  fact, 
is  one  of  the  most  striking  proofs  of  how  relatively  small 
a  factor  the  railway  itself  is  in  a  complex  system  of  trans- 
portation. Compared  with  the  terminal  services  required 
— collection  and  delivery,  station  accommodation  and 
facilities,  handling,  clerking  and  supervision — ^the  actual 
cost  of  haulage  is  a  bagatelle. 


EXCEPTIONAL  RATES  AND  SERVICES     193 

British  railways  are  being  handicapped  and  in  many 
cases  weighed  down  by  their  accessories,  by  extraneous 
work  with  which  they  should  never  have  saddled  them- 
selves. If  they  had  stuck  to  their  proper  business  of 
hauling  goods  and  passengers  and  left  the  collection 
and  distribution  of  them  to  special  agencies,  as  in  the 
United  States,  the  10  per  cent,  dividends  with  which 
they  began  their  career  might  easily  have  been  maintained. 
Long  hauls  and  cheap  terminal  service  are  the  secrets  of 
railway  success.  Nature  has  denied  them  the  j&rst  and 
their  own  shortsightedness  has  deprived  them  of  the  second. 
But  they  have  still  much  to  gain  by  recognising  the 
errors  of  the  past  and  as  far  as  possible  correcting  them. 
The  least  they  can  do  is  to  avoid  persisting  in  them  and 
adding  to  the  heavy  burdens  they  have  imposed  on 
imfortunate  railway  shareholders.  Intelligent  and  im- 
partial travellers  on  a  British  railway  may  be  greatly 
edified  by  comparing  the  line  itself  with  the  multitude 
of  accessories  which  have  been  found  necessary  to  its 
operation.  Even  a  second-class  station  may  represent 
the  cost  of  miles  of  track,  while  its  working  expenses 
might  pay  for  millions  of  ton  miles  of  haulage. 

Both  on  British  and  American  railways  it  has  been 
observed  that  the  great  majority  of  complaints  by  traders 
are  made  on  the  groimd  of  unfairness  or  inequality. 
Very  few  of  them  allege  that  the  rates  are  in  themselves 
excessive  or  unreasonable.  Inequality  was  an  almost 
necessary  consequence  of  the  haphazard  way  in  which 
the  original  tariff  came  into  existence.  Every  new 
railway  company  proposed  a  tariff  of  its  own,  and  gener- 
ally got  it  passed.  The  first  efforts  at  uniformity  were 
limited  to  special  classes  of  goods  or  special  trades. 
The  only  kind  of  equality  that  ParHament  concerned  itself 
about  in  those  days  was  equal  treatment  for  all  users  of 
the  railway.  This  wholesome  doctrine  was  distinctly 
laid  down  as  early  as  1844.  Section  90  of  the  Railway 
Clauses  Consohdation  Act  says — 

"  And  whereas  it  is  expedient  that  the  company  should 
be  enabled  to  vary  the  tolls  upon  the  railway  so  as  to 
accommodate  them  to  the  circumstances  of  the  traffic, 


194  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

but  that  such  power  of  varying  should  not  be  used  for 
the  purpose  of  prejudicing  or  favouring  particular  parties, 
or  for  the  purpose  of  collusively  and  unfairly  creating 
a  monopoly  either  in  the  hands  of  the  company  or  of 
particular  parties,  it  shall  be  lawful,  therefore,  for  the 
company,  subject  to  the  provisions  and  limitations  herein- 
after and  in  the  said  special  Acts  contained,  from  time  to 
time  to  alter  or  vary  the  tolls  by  the  special  Act  authorised 
to  be  taken,  provided  that  all  such  tolls  be  at  all  times 
charged  equally  to  all  persons  and  after  the  same  rate, 
whether  per  ton  per  mile  or  otherwise,  in  respect  of  all 
passengers  and  of  all  goods  or  carriages  of  the  same 
description,  and  conveyed  or  propelled  by  a  like  carriage 
or  engine  passing  over  the  same  portion  of  the  line  under 
the  same  circumstances." 

It  can  hardly  fail  to  be  noticed  how  much  more  liberal 
and  elastic  was  this  rating  principle  established  by  the 
Parliament  of  1845  than  the  one  substituted  for  it  fifty 
years  later.  The  Consolidating  Act  of  1894  deprived 
the  railway  companies  of  the  freedom  to  adjust  their 
rates  which  had  been  voluntarily  conceded  to  them  in 
1845.  They  are  no  longer  at  liberty  "  to  vary  their 
tolls  so  as  to  accommodate  them  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  traffic."  No  advance,  however  reasonable  and 
well  justified,  can  be  made  by  a  railway  company  on  its 
own  authority,  and  this  veto  operates  also  as  a  veto 
on  reducing  rates.  No  company,  however  willing  it 
might  be  to  lower  a  rate  for  a  special  occasion,  will  risk 
doing  so  when  it  knows  that  a  lawsuit  may  be  necessary 
to  get  it  restored.  The  trader  for  whose  supposed  benefit 
the  Act  of  1895  was  passed  suffers  equally  with  the 
railway  company  through  its  left-handed  operation. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

COMPETITIVB   BATES 

There  are  almost  as  many  different  kinds  of  competi- 
tive rates  as  there  are  different  theories  of  rate-making. 
The  chief  of  them  may,  however,  be  divided  into  three 
or  four  groups  according  to  their  causes. 

First,  those  which  have  resulted  from  economic  or 
political  causes  beyond  the  control  of  the  railway 
companies. 

Second,  those  which  have  been  forced  on  the  railway 
companies  by  outside  competitors — road  and  water 
carriers  in  particular. 

Third,  those  which  have  originated  among  the  railways 
themselves,  and  for  which  they  have  themselves  entirely 
to  thank. 

A  typical  economic  cause  of  railway  competition  was 
the  revolution  in  our  fiscal  system  due  to  the  repeal  of 
the  corn  laws.  It  altered  and  in  some  cases  reversed  the 
main  currents  of  British  trade.  It  called  for  new  trade 
routes  and  threw  old  ones  out  of  use.  Railways  had  to 
be  rapidly  built  to  meet  the  demand  for  new  forms  of 
transportation,  and,  as  was  almost  inevitable,  in  the 
circumstances,  they  were  over-built.  On  top  of  this  evil 
parliamentary  interference  led  to  many  costly  mistakes 
being  committed.  If  the  original  network  of  railways 
had  been  wisely  planned  with  a  single  eye  to  the  work 
to  be  performed,  it  would  not  only  have  been  much 
less  heavily  capitalised,  but  it  would  have  had  many 
fewer  points  of  competition. 

Until  recently  road  and  water  competition  has  been 
an  unimportant  factor  in  railway  economics.  Now, 
however,  it  is  becoming  serious,  and  in  the  near  future 

195 


196  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

they  may  prove  formidable.  As  yet  the  motor  bus  and 
motor  van  have  done  little  more  than  flutter  the  railway 
dovecots  and  scale  down  some  of  the  weaker  dividends. 
But  we  have  seen  only  the  beginnings  of  their  evolution. 
Their  future  possibilities  can  only  be  guessed  at. 

After  discounting  all  the  external  forms  of  competition 
from  which  the  railways  have  suffered,  a  very  large 
balance  remains  which  must  be  charged  to  their  own 
account.  All  sorts  of  reasons,  objects,  motives  and 
policies  have  played  a  part  in  it.  From  petty  vanity 
to  bold  strategy  it  has  had  many  parents.  Now  that  the 
railway  pioneers  of  last  century  are  all  resting  from  their 
parliamentary  and  other  duels  it  may  be  admitted  that 
they  were  a  pugnacious  generation,  and  cost  their  share- 
holders not  a  few  millions  of  pounds  which  more  pacific 
tactics  might  have  saved.  But  in  extenuation  of  this 
peculiar  fault  of  theirs  it  may  be  pleaded  that  they  had 
to  deal  with  people  as  bellicose  as  themselves.  Every- 
body hustled  in  those  days,  and  all  classes  fought  for  their 
own  hands.  The  farmer,  the  manufacturer,  the  trader, 
the  importer  and  the  exporter  were  animated  by  a  common 
desire  to  get  as  much  as  they  could  out  of  the  railways 
and  to  pay  for  it  as  little  as  possible. 

The  policy  of  the  fighting  railway  managers  of  the 
Victorian  Age  is  rather  difficult  to  follow,  it  is  so  full  of 
contradictions.  With  one  hand  they  were  co-operating 
and  with  the  other  they  were  devising  new  methods  of 
competition.  At  certain  competing  points  they  pooled 
the  traffic,  and  at  certain  others  they  fought  for  it  as  if 
their  lives  depended  upon  it.  They  gave  each  other 
running  powers  over  sections  of  their  lines  and  leases 
of  valuable  terminals,  then,  having  admitted  an  enemy 
into  the  citadel,  they  fought  him  tooth  and  nail.  In  this 
way  the  traffic  of  important  provincial  towns  was  divided 
and  subdivided  until  what  might  have  been  enough  for 
one  or  two  had  to  be  scrambled  for  by  three  or  four. 

The  scramble  that  goes  on  at  Bradford  may  serve  for 
a  typical  example.  Two  railways,  the  Midland  and 
Great  Northern,  have  their  own  terminals  in  that  city, 
and  doubtless  they  could  do  all  the  work  there  is  to  do. 


COMPETITIVE  KATES  197 

But  the  Great  Northern  saw  fit  to  take  in  two  lodgers. 
It  gave  the  Great  Central  running  powers  into  its  station, 
with  the  right  to  employ  a  staff  of  its  own  to  canvass  and 
collect  traffic.     Afterwards  the  Great  Eastern  obtained 
a  similar  privilege,  but  it  did  not  put  in  a  staff  of  its  own, 
it  shared  that  of  the  Great  Central.     So  it  came  about 
that  four  railways  found  themselves  fighting  for  traffic 
which  was  perhaps  barely  enough  for  two.     They  fought, 
however,  in  a  most  gentlemanly  and  courteous  manner. 
Etiquette  forbade  them  to  cut  rates  even  to  the  extent 
of  a  farthing.     Neither  could  they  give  rebates.     But 
they  could  spend  as  much  money  as  they  pleased  in 
"  granting    facilities "    to    their    customers.     In    other 
words,  they  could  compete  in  expenditure  though  not  in 
rates.     They  could  put  on  twice  as  many  collecting  and 
delivering  vans  as  were  really  needed  for  the  traffic. 
They   could   duplicate   and   triplicate   all  the   terminal 
services,  and  in  so  doing  waste  thousands  a  year.     What 
actually  occurred  at  Bradford  has  been  thus  described — 
"  The  buses  and  vans  of  the  four  companies  are  being 
used  to  collect  the  traffic.     At  the  various  depots  the 
consignments  may  be  loaded  into  either  Great  Central, 
Great  Eastern,  Great  Northern  or  Midland  trucks,  and 
when  loaded  they  will  travel  by  four  different  routes. 
The  vans  frequently  come  into  the  depots  with  only 
half  a  load,  and  as  the  trucks  by  all  routes  cannot  be  just 
filled,  the  probability  is  that  each  company  has  some 
goods  left  over  for  which  a  half -empty  wagon  has  to  be 
run.     Also  as  each  company  has  only  a  few  wagons  in 
all  for  London,  not  one  of  them  can  run  a  through  train, 
so  the  wagons  have  to  be  taken  to  a  junction,  where 
time  and  labour  are  expended  in  shunting  and  transferring 
them  to  another  train." 

The  connecting  trains  for  the  first  junction  are  probably 
not  fully  loaded,  and  if  they  belonged  to  one  company, 
four  of  them  might  do  the  work  of  five.  This  would  be 
all  the  greater  saving  in  the  case  of  the  Great  Central 
and  Great  Northern  trains,  which  run  for  a  considerable 
distance  out  of  Bradford  on  the  same  metals.  It  is  these 
interlacing  and  overlapping  arrangements  rather  than 


198  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

direct  and  open  competition  that  cause  the  worst  leaks  in 
the  goods  service.  More  flagrant  cases  of  duplicate  ex- 
penditure than  even  Bradford  might  be  named.  In  1907 
the  Economist  exposed  a  bad  case  of  overlapping  at 
Manchester — 

"  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Great  Northern  and  Great 
Central  companies  are  both  running  a  vast  amount  of 
mileage  which  but  for  the  stress  of  competition  would  be 
imnecessary.  They  are  both  probably  sending  wagons 
long  distances  every  day  with  very  light  loads,  and  they 
are  both  employing  an  army  of  canvassers  to  secure 
business  upon  which  the  profit  is  reduced  to  vanishing- 
point  on  account  of  the  conditions  under  which  it  has 
to  be  carried.  To  take  a  concrete  case  by  way  of  illustra- 
tion. A  shipper  in  Manchester  has,  say,  a  ton  of  cloth 
in  bales  to  send  away  each  day  to  some  town  served  by 
both  these  companies,  and  as  the  canvassers  of  both 
companies  are  clamouring  for  the  business,  he  decides, 
as  is  constantly  done,  to  divide  it  between  them.  Both 
companies  send  their  lorries  to  bring  away  10  cwt.  each, 
and  that  small  quantity  has  to  be  specially  handled  at 
the  station  and  loaded  in  a  through  truck  to  its  destina- 
tion in  order  to  avoid  any  possibility  of  delay  by  tranship- 
ment at  some  intermediate  point.  Under  a  system  of 
co-operation  such  as  that  adopted  on  some  of  the  other 
lines  there  would  in  the  first  place  be  no  occasion  for  either 
company  to  employ  canvassers  to  tout  for  the  ton  of 
cloth.  The  companies  would  probably  agree  to  collect 
and  deal  with  the  whole  consignment  alternate  weeks 
or  alternate  months,  and  in  this  way  the  double  cartage 
would  be  saved  and  the  ton  of  traffic  would  be  carried 
to  its  destination  by  one  company  at  probably  no  more 
than  the  cost  incurred  by  each  of  them  under  the  previous 
system  in  conveying  half  the  consignment." 

It  is  satisfactory  to  note  that  the  co-operate  move- 
ment has  begun  to  produce  some  good  results  in  this 
direction.  An  even  more  drastic  remedy  for  overlapping 
than  that  suggested  by  the  Economist  is  being  applied 
to  some  of  the  worst  cases.  The  Railway  Review  of  the 
2nd  August,    1912,  is  our  authority  for   the   following 


COMPETITIVE  RATES  199 

list  of  joint  stations  that  have  passed  into  single 
ownership — 

"  It  is  understood  that  the  London  and  South- Western 
Company  will  shortly  absorb  the  Great  Western  passenger 
station  at  SaHsbury  and  convert  it  into  a  goods  depot. 
In  return  the  Great  Western  will  take  over  the  London 
and  South- Western  business  at  Weymouth.  The  Great 
Northern  are  leaving  Cambridge  to  the  Great  Eastern 
and  SheJBfield  to  their  Great  Central  friends.  The  Great 
Central  are  withdrawing  from  Bradford,  HaUfax,  Keighley, 
and  Leeds,  where  the  business  will  be  administered  by 
the  Great  Northern.  It  is  confidently  anticipated  that 
considerable  economies  in  administration  will  be  effected 
by  these  and  other  changes  which  are  pending.  The 
public  are  assured  there  is  to  be  no  reduction  in  efficiency 
— in  fact,  increased  inter  changeability  of  tickets  is  broadly 
hinted  at  as  a  probable  result." 

Competitive  rates  on  British  railways  have  been  evolved 
by  a  very  similar  process  to  framing  a  new  tariff  in  the 
United  States  Congress .  Everybody  with  an  axe  of  his  own 
to  grind  had  to  be  heard,  and  as  far  as  possible  satisfied. 
Every  group  of  producers  and  of  traders  had  to  be 
negotiated  with.  All  the  budding  industries  along  the 
line  or  within  easy  reach  of  it  had  to  be  made  to  feel  that 
the  railway  was  their  friend.  The  staple  industries  on 
which  it  was  to  depend  for  the  bulk  of  its  traffic  had  to 
be  conciliated.  The  various  districts  it  passed  through 
bristled  with  local  jealousies  which  had  to  be  respected. 
Finally,  as  the  coasting  and  over-sea  trade  developed, 
the  most  difficult  problem  of  all  evolved  itself— how 
were  foreign  and  domestic  rates  to  be  adjusted? 

These  various  difficulties  were  struggled  with  in  a 
haphazard,  hand-to-mouth  way.  The  ultimate  result 
was  that  many  were  not  only  left  unsolved,  but  wrong 
roads  were  taken  which  led  them  farther  and  farther 
away  from  a  real  solution.  In  excuse  for  the  original 
rate-makers  it  may  be  urged  that  they  did  not  initiate 
the  custom  of  favouring  the  import  and  export  trade  at 
the  expense  of  domestic  trade.  It  had  long  been  one 
of  the  fiscal  principles  of  the  country,  and  Mr.  Gnerson 


200  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

has  pointed  out  that  it  was  embodied  in  the  charter 
of  our  very  first  steam  railway — the  Stockton  and 
Darhngton — 

"  Nor  is  the  practice  recently  introduced  in  the  interest 
of  railway  companies.  In  the  Act  authorising  the  very 
first  railway  on  which  steam  was  used,  the  Stockton  and 
Darlington,  the  principle  is  recognised.  The  tolls  upon 
the  coal  shipped  on  board  any  vessel  for  export  were 
fixed  at  one  halfpenny  per  ton  per  mile,  while  the  toll 
on  all  other  coal  was  4rf.  per  ton  per  mile.  Each  of  the 
export  rates,  it  may  be  truly  said,  has  been  made  at  the 
instance  of  some  manufacturer  or  shipper  who  would  be 
injured  by  their  withdrawal." 

This,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  not  a  very  strong  defence 
of  favouring  the  foreigner,  but  it  throws  some  needed 
light  on  the  origin  of  the  practice.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  does  not  excuse  modem  railway  managers  for  continuing 
it  long  after  changed  conditions  had  rendered  it  un- 
necessary, and  in  many  cases  unfair.  At  the  very  least 
it  should  have  been  abandoned  after  the  principle  of 
equal  treatment  for  all  was  formally  adopted  in  1845. 
Mr.  Grierson's  excuse  for  special  export  rates,  that  "  some 
manufacturer  or  shipper  would  be  injured  by  their  with- 
drawal," is  in  one  sense  an  aggravation  of  the  charge, 
as  it  indicates  that  only  privileged  shippers  had  the 
benefit  of  them. 

Nevertheless  Mr.  Grierson's  main  argument,  that  the 
railways  did  not  originate  the  reduced  foreign  rates  now 
so  much  objected  to,  is  perfectly  true.  A  large  and  varied 
amount  of  foreign  competition  had  developed  before 
the  railway  became  a  formidable  factor  in  commercial 
transportation.  When  it  did  begin  to  reach  out  for 
foreign  traffic  it  was  import  rather  than  export  business 
that  it  chiefly  coveted.  Export  rates  soon  ceased  to  be 
of  vital  consequence.  They  affected  only  some  heavy 
exports  like  coal  and  other  raw  materials.  But  privileged 
rates  on  imports  hit  quite  another  and  a  more  sensitive 
class.  Their  earliest  and  worst  victims  were  the  farmers, 
who  were  also  the  first  to  raise  a  vigorous  protest. 

It  was  not  against  the  railways  only  that  the  farmers 


COMPETITIVE  RATES  201 

had  a  grievance.  They  had  already  been  hard  hit  by 
the  development  of  steam  navigation  in  the  Irish  and 
the  continental  trades.  It  was  while  they  were  still 
staggering  under  this  blow  that  the  corn  laws  were 
repealed.  Then  they  not  merely  lost  all  the  fiscal  and 
geographical  protection  which  their  markets  had  previ- 
ously enjoyed,  but  they  were  actually  handicapped  in 
competition  with  their  foreign  rivals.  The  exceptional 
freights  granted  to  continental  ports  made  it  a  good  deal 
cheaper  to  send  wheat  to  London  from  Hamburg  than 
from  Hertfordshire.  This  grievance  was  loudly  pro- 
claimed in  the  Farmers'  Magazine  for  January  1840. 

"  The  charges  on  the  internal  transport  of  grain  by 
the  rivers  and  canals  (with  their  heavy  dues)  say  freight 
factorage,  etc.,  frequently  amount  to  65.  or  85.  a  quarter. 
The  expense  of  a  quarter  of  wheat  from  the  banks  of  the 
Shannon  to  its  general  consuming  market  (Manchester) 
is  equal  to  that  incurred  on  a  quarter  shipped  from 
Hamburg  to  London.  A  sack  of  flour  made  by  a  Hert- 
fordshire miller  twenty  or  twenty-five  miles  from  London 
and  sent  hither  by  land  carriage  is  35.,  while  a  Hamburg 
miller  can  send  one  to  London  at  the  same  expense." 

The  above  was  a  case  of  natural  competition,  subject 
to  geographical  conditions,  for  which  neither  railways 
nor  steamers  were  responsible.  They  had  not  gone  out 
of  their  way  to  create  it,  as  the  railways  undoubtedly 
did  at  a  later  period.  Then  they  laid  themselves  open 
to  a  new  and  more  serious  grievance  of  the  farmers. 
This  was  the  organisation  of  special  continental  services 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  importers  of  foreign  produce 
advantages  which  were  quite  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
same  class  of  home  producers.  This  point  was  argued 
out  before  the  Railway  and  Canal  Commissioners  in  the 
Southampton  Docks  case,  which  has  been  clearly  stated 
by  Mr.  Acworth — 

"  In  that  case,  where  it  was  a  question  of  the  reasonable- 
ness of  charging  very  much  higher  rates  for  local  and 
retail  traffic  than  for  the  wholesale  traffic  in  the  same 
commodities  between  Southampton  and  London,  figures 
were  produced  which  showed  that  a  train  load  of  dock 


202  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

traffic  in  bacon,  butter  and  the  like,  charged  at  65.  per 
ton  for  seventy-eight  miles  earned  125.  6d.  per  train  mile, 
leaving  the  railway  company,  after  deducting  25.  Qd.  per 
train  mile  as  cost  of  working,  IO5.  per  train  mile  net 
profit.  The  local  traffic  came  in  such  small  and  uncertain 
quantities  that  though  the  rates  averaged  155.  per  ton 
for  an  equivalent  distance,  a  train  only  earned  55.  per 
mile,  leaving,  after  once  more  deducting  25.  6d.  per  train 
mile  for  working  expenses,  a  net  profit  of  only  25.  6d.y  or 
one-fourth  of  that  in  the  former  case."  ^ 

If  it  had  been  a  question  of  railway  rates  pure  and 
simple  that  was  being  discussed,  the  defence  of  the  London 
and  South- Western  Railway  in  the  above  case  would 
have  been  plausible  if  not  conclusive.  But  the  modem 
conception  of  a  railway  is  much  larger  than  that  of  a 
mere  public  carrier.  It  is  no  longer  supposed  to  sit  still 
and  wait  for  new  traffic  to  come  to  it.  It  is  expected 
to  encourage,  and  as  far  as  in  it  lies  to  assist,  the  various 
classes  of  producers  in  its  territory  to  create  traffic. 

Had  the  London  and  South- Western  Railway  adopted 
this  policy  thirty  years  ago  it  might  ere  now  have  been 
able  to  run  train  loads  of  Hampshire  and  Devonshire 
produce  to  London  as  easily  and  cheaply  as  to  bring 
train  loads  from  the  Continent.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  give 
it  and  other  English  railways  credit  for  having  turned 
over  a  new  leaf  in  this  respect.  A  remarkable  develop- 
ment of  market  gardening  is  in  progress  along  the  south 
coast,  especially  between  Brighton  and  Southampton. 
It  has  already  created  a  volume  of  railway  traffic  worth 
catering  for,  and  the  local  railways  are  beginning  to  do 
their  duty  by  it.  At  the  same  time  it  has  raised  the 
status  of  the  home  producer  much  nearer  to  that  of  the 
foreigner.  He  should  soon  be  able  to  negotiate  on 
equal  terms  with  the  railway  company,  and  to  claim 
equality  of  treatment  both  as  regards  rates  and  services. 

From  the  agriculturist's  point  of  view  the  question  of 

import   rates    has   improved   considerably   in   the   past 

thirty  years.     But  the  railways  can  still  do  a  good  deal 

more  for  him.     They  have  to  get  into  closer  touch  with 

^  Acworth's  Elements  of  Railway  Economics,  p.  54. 


COMPETITIVE  RATES  203 

the  growers,  and  to  give  them  every  possible  facility  for 
getting  their  produce  to  market  in  good  condition.  The 
Brighton  Company  and  the  London  and  South  Western 
now  run  special  market  garden  trains  to  London  at  fixed 
hours,  but  they  tender  no  help  in  collecting  the  various 
shipments.  This  part  of  the  work  is  still  in  a  very  crude 
state.  What  is  badly  needed  on  the  south  coast  is  a 
few  motor  vans  to  collect  each  day's  consignment  from 
the  gardens  and  run  them  to  the  special  train  which  is 
to  carry  them  to  London.  More  might  be  saved  on  this 
part  of  the  service  than  on  the  railway  rates,  even  if 
these  were  to  be  cut  down  one-half. 

While  the  farmer  continued  to  be  the  principal  victim 
of  preferential  foreign  rates  they  did  not  excite  much 
public  interest.  But  in  due  time  home  manufacturers 
and  merchants  came  within  the  scope  of  their  ever- 
widening  influences.  The  Victorian  Age  was  distinguished 
by  a  strong  and  general  outburst  of  commercial  politics. 
It  applied  itself  with  enthusiasm  to  practical  questions 
of  taxation,  transportation  and  foreign  trade.  Customs 
duties  and  railway  rates  became  as  favourite  topics  at 
Westminster  as  Home  Rule  and  Disestablishment  are 
to-day.  The  hitherto  all-powerful  railway  companies 
were  attacked  by  several  distinct  bands  of  hostile  critics 
— legal,  commercial  and  political.  Their  foreign  rates 
were  most  hotly  assailed  as  being  their  most  vulnerable 
point.  Session  after  session  they  were  denounced  in  the 
House  of  Commons  and  in  Chambers  of  Commerce.  One 
Select  Committee  after  another  was  appointed  to  investi- 
gate new  phases  of  the  problem  as  they  arose.  But  the 
railway  companies  were  generally  able  to  show  that 
there  was  something  to  be  said  on  the  other  side.  So 
the  controversy  has  drifted  on  and  on  without  making 
much  progress  toward  a  definite  settlement. 

Meanwhile  a  fairly  satisfactory  compromise  was  effected 
by  the  arrangement  of  1894.  The  schedules  and  the 
classifications  then  agreed  upon  worked  smoothly  for 
a  good  many  years,  and  if  they  are  now  in  some  respects 
out  of  date,  there  should  be  no  difficulty  about  over- 
hauling them  in  a  friendly  spirit.     Unfortunately  that 


204  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

is  not  the  spirit  in  which  many  of  those  who  claim  a 
voice  in  the  matter  are  approaching  it.  The  railways 
had  enemies  enough  in  the  Victorian  Age,  but  they  seem 
to  have  many  more  now.  Their  enemies  were  also  bitter 
enough,  but  their  bitterness  was  honey  itself  compared 
with  the  sweeping  denunciations  of  present-day  censors. 

The  variety  of  these  censors  and  the  many  different 
lines  of  attack  they  adopt  are  the  most  surprising  features 
of  the  campaign.  While  Sir  Alfred  Mond  and  his  allies 
assail  them  from  one  side,  the  trade  unionists  strike  at 
them  from  the  other.  The  farmer's  friends  jump  in 
whenever  they  see  an  opening.  The  ministerial  Radicals 
oppose  any  and  every  concession  to  the  railway  companies 
for  the  sake  of  the  labour  votes  that  are  to  be  got  out 
of  it.  The  Socialists,  of  course,  miss  no  opportunity 
of  denoimcing  the  railways  as  a  capitalistic  crime,  and 
charging  them  with  all  the  sins  of  mismanagement  that 
can  be  heaped  on  them.  The  trade  imionists  run  their 
Socialist  friends  hard  in  these  outbursts  of  rhetorical 
abuse. 

In  the  present  temper  of  the  House  of  Commons  such 
a  thing  as  justice  to  the  railways  is  not  to  be  looked  for. 
But  sadder  than  the  partisan  hostility  of  their  opponents 
is  the  fatuity  with  which  they  have  spoiled  their  own  case 
and  presented  their  worst  side  to  the  public.  Instead 
of  organising  simple  and  direct  train  services  for  which 
moderate  rates  could  be  charged,  as  on  Grerman  and 
American  lines,  they  invented  the  most  complicated 
services,  and  had  to  charge  proportionately  for  them. 
When  the  latter  are  analysed  into  their  various  parts, 
and  each  part  is  fairly  valued,  it  is  found  that  the  sum 
total,  instead  of  being  excessive,  is  really  moderate,  often 
to  the  extent  of  being  unremunerative. 

Popular  declaimers  against  the  railway  companies 
know  little  and  care  less  about  what  they  have  come 
through.  They  take  no  account  of  the  past  mistakes 
which  the  present  generation  of  railway  managers  have 
inherited.  They  forget  the  parliamentary  interference  by 
which  the  railways  have  all  along  been  hampered.  They 
ignore   the   new  difficulties   which   are   always   starting 


COMPETITIVE  RATES  206 

up  in  their  path.  Whatever  is  wrong  is  attributed  to 
the  existing  directors  and  managers.  Mr.  Hyndman 
specially  distinguishes  himself  in  this  very  one-sided 
kind  of  censorship,  and  several  choice  examples  of  it 
occur  in  his  Reminiscences.  Referring  to  the  Duke  of 
Devonshire's  Royal  Commission  on  foreign  and  domestic 
railway  rates,  he  says — 

"  A  little  more  attention  was  given  to  the  question  of 
differential  rates  in  favour  of  foreign  imports  because  it 
was  the  question  of  the  moment.  It  did  seem  preposter- 
ous even  to  Royal  Commissioners  that  home  meat  from 
Cheshire  should  cost  twice  as  much  to  send  to  Sheffield 
as  foreign  meat  from  Birkenhead  in  the  same  county; 
that  it  should  cost  just  one-third  the  freight  to  ship  ores 
and  manufactured  iron  between  Essen  and  port,  as  it 
did  between  Sheffield,  the  English  Essen,  and  port, 
and  that  fruit  and  other  agricultural  produce  should  be 
rotting  in  English  orchards  and  fields  because  the  freight 
to  London  was  prohibitive,  while  inferior  foreign  eatables 
of  the  same  description  were  passing  up  every  night 
and  every  day  to  Covent  Garden  at  a  fraction  of  the  rates 
charged  to  our  own  countrymen."  ^ 

Sweeping  abuse  of  this  sort  is  invariably  based  on 
imperfect  information.  In  this  case  the  writer  appears  to 
be  quite  unaware  of  the  fact  that  most  of  our  trunk  lines 
have  a  parcel  service  specially  organised  for  agricultural 
and  garden  produce.  The  rates,  so  far  from  being 
exorbitant,  are  so  low  that  it  is  doubtful  if  any  of  these 
services  are  self-supporting.  When  the  cost  of  collection 
and  delivery  has  been  met  very  little  will  as  a  rule  remain 
for  train  haulage. 

1  H.  M.  Hyndman's  Further  Reminiscences,  p.  21. 


CHAPTER   XVIII 

LONG  AND  SHORT  HAUL  RATES 

One  of  the  most  puzzling  factors  in  railway  economics 
is  the  great  advantage  of  the  long  haul  over  the  short 
haul.  Even  railway  managers  seem  to  find  it  difficult 
to  grasp  the  essential  difference  between  the  two.  No- 
where is  this  difference  more  remarkable  than  on  our 
own  railways.  So  heavily  handicapped  is  the  short 
haul  by  expensive  terminals  and  other  fixed  charges,  that 
its  financial  results  cannot  be  expected  to  compare  with 
those  of  long-haul  freight.  Short-haul  roads,  as  most  of 
our  British  railways  are,  and  long-haul  roads,  as  the 
principal  American  railways  are,  have  little  or  nothing 
in  common.     They  are  entirely  different  propositions. 

Short  hauls  and  relatively  high  terminal  charges  are 
the  two  weak  points  of  our  railway  system.  They  have 
been  the  most  prolific  causes  of  competition,  not  merely 
in  train  service,  but  in  building  unnecessary  mileage. 
This  produces  over-capitalisation,  which  in  turn  entails 
excessive  fixed  charges.  The  short  haul  is  at  a  double 
disadvantage,  first  in  the  high  ratio  of  its  terminal  charges 
to  the  charge  for  haulage,  and  secondly  in  the  higher 
rates  charged  for  short  than  for  long  distances.  Not- 
withstanding short-haul  traffic  being  thus  overcharged, 
it  pays  badly  compared  with  long-haid  traffic.  According 
to  Mr.  Acworth — 

206 


LONG  AND  SHORT  HAUL  RATES    207 

"  The  French  railway  companies  comp^e  and  pubhsh 
statistics  giving  for  each  section  and  branch  of  their 
system  separatively  the  traffic  carried  over  it,  the  earn- 
ings, expenses  and  net  profit.  Broadly  the  result  is  to 
show  that  the  main  lines  with  low  average  rates  are 
splendidly  profitable,  while  the  branch  lines  with  light 
traffic,  in  spite  of  higher  rates,  are  worked  in  most  cases 
at  an  actual  loss."  ^ 

This  is  a  curious  confirmation  of  American  experience 
with  regard  to  long  and  short  haul  traffic.  The  French 
railways  offer  a  much  closer  comparison  with  our  own 
than  those  of  the  United  States,  and  yet  they  lead  us 
to  a  very  similar  conclusion.  But  it  was  the  American 
and  Canadian  transcontinental  railways  that  first  taught 
the  railway  world  these  two  great  truths,  that  goods 
traffic  is  much  more  remunerative  than  passengers,  and 
that  length  of  haul  is  more  important  than  the  rate  per 
mile.  To  these  might  be  added  a  third — ^that  terminal 
charges  are  the  worst  possible  form  of  levying  railway 
rates.  They  resemble  the  extras  in  an  hotel  bill.  In  the 
case  of  very  long  hauls  terminals  are  such  an  insignificant 
item  as  to  be  hardly  worth  mentioning,  whereas  on  a 
short  haul  consignment  they  may  amount  to  one-half 
the  total  charge  or  even  more. 

Mr.  Marriott,  the  Assistant  Traffic  Manager  of  the 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire  Railway,  has  given  in  his 
book  on  the  fixing  of  rates  and  fares  some  useful  examples 
of  how  goods  rates  are  compiled.  They  distinguish  in 
each  case  haulage,  station  terminals  and  service  terminals, 
and  it  is  very  interesting  how  they  vary  in  their  relative 
proportions  of  the  whole.  For  a  short-haul  example  we 
may  take  Manchester  to  Bradford,  38  miles.  The  consign- 
ment has  to  travel  over  two  railways,  and  consequently 
has  to  be  rated  on  two  short  distances— first,  29^  miles 
on  the  London  and  North- Western,  and  next  8|  miles 
on  the  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire.  Subjoined  is  an 
exact  transcript  of  Mr.  Marriott's  bill  for  one  ton  of 
goods — 

1  Acworth's  Elements  of  Railway  Economics,  p.  64. 


208 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


Manchester  and  Bradford,  Class  1,  135.  5d.  per  Ton. 

London  and   North- Western  and  Lancashire  and  Yorkshirb, 
38  miles. 


Per  Ton 
per  Mile. 

Per  Ton. 

«.       d. 

s. 

d. 

0     2-30 
0     1-85 

3 

1 

8-00 
6-67 

0     2-20 

1 

7-25 

6 

8-82 

1     6 
1     6 

0     6 
0     5 
0     1-50 
0     1-50 
2     8-00 

6 

9 

13 

5-82 

Manchester  (L.    &  N.-W.)    to    Bradley    Wood 
Junction    : 

First  20  miles 

Next9J     „  

Bradley  Wood  Junction  to  Bradford  : 

8|  miles         

Station  Terminals  : 

Manchester 

Bradford 

Service  Terminals  : 

Loading 

Unloading 

Covering 

Uncovering 

Cartage 


A  rather  humorous  coincidence  will  be  observed 
between  the  charge  for  haulage  and  the  combined  terminal 
charges.  They  are  practically  identical — 65.  9c?.  each — 
showing  that  it  costs  as  much  to  load  and  unload  the 
goods  as  to  transport  them  a  distance  of  nearly  40  miles. 
To  put  it  in  another  way,  50  per  cent.,  or  one -half  of  the 
total  charge,  is  not  for  transportation  but  for  handling 
at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  journey.  As  the 
length  of  the  haul  increases  the  proportion  of  the  total 
charge  absorbed  by  terminals  diminishes.  In  the  next 
example,  a  233  mile  haul,  it  declines  from  50  per  cent, 
to  20  per  cent.  But  that  is  still  a  large  deduction  to 
make  for  the  mere  handling  of  the  goods. 


LONG  AND  SHORT  HAUL  RATES 


209 


Colne  to  London,  Class  2,  43.s.  9^^.  per  Ton. 
Lancashire  and  Yorkshire  and  London  and  North- Western, 

233J   MILES. 


Per  Ton 
per  Mile. 

Per  Ton. 

Colne  to  Ardwick  : 

First  20  miles.      .      .      . 

Nexti6i  „    .  .  .  ;  ; 

Ardwick  to  London  via  Crewe  : 

First  20  miles 

Next  30     „ 

»     50    „ 

»     87i„     

Station  Terminals  : 

Colne 

London      

Service  Terminals : 

Loading 

Unloading 

Covering 

Uncovering 

Cartage 

d. 

2-65 
2-30 

2-65 
2-30 
1-80 
1-50 

8.     d. 

4     5 
3     1-95 

7     6-95 

4    5 

6  9 

7  6 
10  10-87 

Per  Ton. 

1     6 
1     6 

8 
8 
2 
2 
6  10 

36     1-82 
10     6 

46     7-82 

It  has  been  said  that  the  shorter  the  haul  the  greater 
is  the  disparity  between  the  cost  of  the  haulage  proper 
and  that  of  the  terminals.  Raw  cotton  carried  a  distance 
of  20  miles  will  furnish  a  good  illustration  of  this.  Its 
maximum  rate  is  2-20d.  per  ton  per  mile,  consequently 
the  rate  for  20  miles  would  be  Zs.  8d.  per  ton.  But  the 
terminal  charges,  cartage,  etc.,  would  amount  to  6s.  9d, 
per  ton,  or  nearly  twice  as  much  as  the  cost  of  the  twenty- 
mile  haul !  Even  on  single-line  traffic,  that  is,  traffic 
passing  over  only  one  railway,  the  cost  of  handling  is 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  cost  of  haulage.  But  on 
traffic  passing  over  two  or  more  lines  the  disparity  is 
liable  to  be  aggravated  by  the  initial  rates  having  to  be 


210  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

repeated  every  time  that  the  consignment  passes  on  to 
a  new  line. 

In  the  above  Cohie  to  London  example  of  a  compiled 
rate,  it  will  be  noted  that  on  the  London  and  North- 
western section  of  the  journey  the  rates  are  graduated 
downward  according  to  distance.  For  the  first  20 
miles  the  charge  is  2-65d.  per  ton  per  mile.  For  the 
next  30  miles  it  is  2-30^.,  for  the  next  50  it  is  I'SOd.,  and 
for  the  next  100  it  is  l'50d.  But  this  graduation  down- 
ward only  holds  good  on  the  same  railway.  On  changing 
to  a  second  railway  a  fresh  start  has  to  be  made  at  the 
top  of  the  scale.  Instead  of  l'60d.  per  ton  per  mile, 
2'65d.  has  again  to  be  paid  for  the  first  20  miles,  2*  30c?. 
for  the  next  30  miles,  and  so  on  as  before.  This  system 
of  rating  sometimes  produces  the  paradoxical  result  that 
the  longest  route  proves  the  cheapest.  If  it  should  be 
on  one  line  all  the  distance  over  100  miles  may  be  charged 
the  minimum  rate  of  IJcZ.  per  mile,  whereas  if  there  be 
three  lines  to  pass  over  the  rate  will  be  alternately  dipping 
from  2'65d.  per  mile  to  I'bOd.^  and  jumping  again  to 
2'65d. 

A  very  plausible  argument  in  favour  of  the  amalgama- 
tion scheme  promoted  by  the  Great  Central,  the  Great 
Eastern  and  Great  Northern  Railways  was  that  it  would 
do  away  with  this  special  tax  on  short  hauls.  When  the 
lines  of  the  three  companies  were  counted  as  one,  con- 
signees, it  was  said,  would  get  the  full  benefit  of  the 
graduated  distance  scale.  This  doubtless  would  be  a 
great  boon,  but  would  it  not  be  a  still  greater  and  more 
direct  boon  to  abolish  the  surcharge  on  short  hauls  ? 
If  it  had  been  intended  to  compensate  the  railway  for 
terminal  expenses  it  might  have  been  reasonable,  but 
the  terminal  charges  are  levied  all  the  same,  and  presum- 
ably they  at  least  reimburse  the  railway  for  its  outlay 
on  them.     As  a  rule  they  may  do  a  good  deal  more. 

If  terminal  charges  cover  the  cost  of  the  service,  there 
is  no  other  good  ground  for  differentiating  between 
long  and  short  hauls ;  that  is,  on  the  same  railway  and 
working  under  similar  conditions.  There  may  be,  and 
in  fact  are,  sound  reasons  for  differential  rates  on  different 


LONG  AND  SHORT  HAUL  RATES    211 

railways.  Equal  mileage  rates  are  a  theorist's  dream, 
but  our  system  of  surcharging  short  hauls  is  a  trifle  too 
wideawake.  It  must  often  hit  the  small  trader  pretty 
hard.  ^       ^ 

The  British  policy  of  making  as  much  as  possible  out 
of  the  short  haul  has  been  obviously  overdone.  It  has 
run  too  much  to  small  details  and  little  extras.  To  make 
as  much  as  possible  out  of  the  stations  and  the  accessories 
of  a  railway  while  neglecting  the  greater  possibilities 
of  the  line  itself  is  small-minded  management.  The 
American  policy,  to  create  and  foster  long-distance 
traffic  to  the  utmost,  not  only  looks  better  but  pays 
better.  Of  course  we  have  not  the  magnificent  distances 
which  the  Americans  have  to  work  upon,  but  more  might 
be  made  of  such  as  we  have.  For  a  British  railway 
manager  nothing  could  be  more  bracing  and  expansive 
than  a  study  of  how  long-distance  traffic  was  built  up 
by  the  creators  of  the  world's  greatest  railway  systems. 
These  men  did  not  waste  their  time  and  energy  on  the 
minutiae  of  terminal  charges,  parcel  deliveries  and  excur- 
sion trains.  They  struck  out  into  the  wild  west  for  the 
big  car,  the  heavy  train  and  the  long  haul. 

True  we  have  no  wild  west,  but  there  may  still  be 
scope  in  the  old  country  for  creating  new  traffic  and 
getting  fuller  trains  as  well  as  longer  hauls.  The  story 
of  how  millions  of  tons  of  freight  were  brought  across 
from  the  Pacific  coast  to  the  Great  Lakes  at  a  cost  which 
beforehand  would  have  been  considered  absurdly  low  is 
worth  studying  for  its  own  sake,  and  as  an  education 
in  railway  economics.  For  British  railway  officials  it 
should  have  a  special  interest,  as  showing  them  the 
antipodes  of  their  own  system.  In  the  first  half  of  this 
chapter  they  will  find  a  faithful  picture  of  short-haul 
traffic  in  its  highest  development.  In  the  remaining 
half  they  will  see  the  perfection  of  long-haul  traffic. 

The  most  typical  examples  of  American  railways  are 
those  of  the  new  North- West.  They  are  the  most 
up-to-date,  which  of  course  means  the  most  thoroughly 
American.  They  have  the  greatest  faith  in  American 
methods,  and  are  loudest  in  the  assertion  that  as  regards 


212  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

both  rates  and  working  expenses  European  railways 
have  been  left  far  behind.  Mr.  J.  J.  Hill,  the  builder  of 
the  Great  Northern,  personifies  this  North- Western 
spirit,  and  expresses  it  frequently  in  breezy  speeches  to 
the  farmers  and  manufacturers  along  his  road.  On  one 
occasion  he  read  a  remarkable  paper  at  Chicago  to  the 
Illinois  Manufacturers'  Association  on  the  opening  up 
of  the  North- West.  Naturally  he  adopted  the  view  that 
cheap  transportation  had  been  the  main  factor  in  that 
marvellous  evolution.  In  order  to  prove  what  railways 
economically  built  and  operated  could  do  for  the  opening 
up  of  a  country,  he  contrasted  the  rates  that  were  being 
charged  on  the  North-West  with  those  of  the  principal 
railway  systems  in  Europe — 

"  In  England  the  average  amount  paid  by  the  shipper 
for  moving  a  ton  of  freight  one  hundred  miles  is  $2'  35 ; 
in  Prance,  $2*10;  in  Austria,  $r90;  in  Germany,  where 
most  of  the  railways  are  owned  and  operated  by  the 
Government,  $1*84;  in  Russia,  also  Government  owner- 
ship, where  the  shipments  are  carried  under  conditions 
more  similar  to  our  own  than  in  any  other  country  as 
respects  long  haul,  $1*70 ;  in  the  United  States  the  average 
cost  is  73  cents,  or  less  than  40  per  cent,  of  the  average 
cost  in  Europe.  And  this  is  done  while  every  article 
used  by  the  railroads,  including  labour,  costs  more  in 
this  country  than  it  costs  in  Europe,  with  the  exception 
of  coal  and  right  of  way." 

While  Mr.  Hill  was  thus  enhghtening  the  Chicago 
manufacturers  on  their  advantages  from  a  railway  point 
of  view,  a  British  railway  manager  was  showing  in  the 
columns  of  The  Times  that  on  the  short-distance  trafiic 
in  which  we  are  most  interested  the  British  trader  has 
the  advantage.  Sir  George  Gibb,  then  the  General 
Manager  of  the  North-Eastern,  gave  a  selection  of  com- 
parisons between  British  and  American  rates  charged 
on  similar  goods  under  similar  conditions.  He  described 
them  as  "  rates  per  ton  for  conveyance  of  a  consignment 
of  five  tons  (excluding  collection  and  delivery)  between 
two  stations  42  miles  from  each  other.  In  both  countries," 
he  explained,  "  the  charge  is  for  haulage  alone — station 


LONG  AND  SHORT  HAUL  RATES    213 

to  station  rates,  as  we  call  them.  American  rates  as  a 
rule  include  no  terminals,  and  they  have  gained  greatly 
by  their  exclusion  both  as  regards  simphcity  and  economy 
of  work." 

Station  to  Station  Rates. 


Bricks  (common) 

Cement  . 

Flour  (in  sacks) 

Malt  (in  bags) 

Oil  cake 

Potatoes  (in  bags) 

Plates  and  Bars  (Iron  or  Steel) 

Stone  (building) 

Ale   ...     . 


American. 


British. 


s.  d. 
4  6 
6  10 

6  8 

7  1 
6    8 


On  what  principle  these  particular  articles  were  selected 
as  tests  of  railway  rates  in  the  two  countries  does  not 
appear.  Of  the  whole  nine  only  two  can  pass  as  agri- 
cultural produce.  The  other  seven  are  industrial,  that 
is,  town-made  goods  rather  than  country  made.  There 
is  not  one  typical  product  of  the  North-West  among 
them — ^neither  wheat  nor  meat  nor  lumber.  The  long- 
haul  traffic  of  the  North-West  must  be  judged  by  its 
own  standards,  and  under  its  own  peculiar  conditions. 
It  has  always  been  regarded  by  Mr.  Hill,  its  principal 
pioneer,  as  creative  traffic.  He  holds  strongly  that  the 
main  duty  of  a  railroad  is  to  develop  the  country  it 
traverses.  Only  it  must  be  allowed  to  do  it  in  its  own 
way.     In  one  of  his  later  speeches  he  said — 

"  If  the  railway  is  to  increase  its  traffic,  it  can  only  be 
done  by  increasing  the  business  of  its  customers.  This 
same  principle  applies  to  the  occupation  and  cultivation 
of  the  land  along  the  lines  of  railway  throughout  the 
country,  and  particularly  applies  to  the  lines  west  of 
Chicago.  Unless  the  farmer  can  make  money  by  the 
cultivation  of  his  land,  either  through  seUing  his  wheat, 
his  grain,  his  cotton  or  his  stock,  with  a  profit  to  himself, 
the  time  must  come  when  he  will  cease  to  cultivate  the 


214  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

land,  and  the  railway  is  left  as  it  were  in  a  desert.  For 
the  past  twenty  years  or  more  I  have  had  some  ex- 
perience in  opening  up  and  peopling  new  states,  and 
have  always  adopted  as  a  fixed  policy  the  making  of 
rates  on  the  products  of  the  country  seeking  a  market, 
and  the  necessities  of  life,  such  as  coal,  lumber  and 
building  material,  at  the  lowest  level  the  company  could 
afford,  looking  more  to  our  profit  from  the  lighter 
articles  of  merchandise  and  shelf  goods  consumed  in  the 
country." 

Mr.  HiU  entered  into  an  elaborate  comparison  to  prove 
to  the  farmers  that  they  stood  to  gain  much  more  from 
low  rates  to  the  seaboard  for  their  produce  than  they 
could  lose  through  high  rates  on  the  merchandise  they 
consumed.  "  Take,"  he  said,  "  a  man  growing  2,000 
bushels,  equal  to  60  tons  of  wheat.  A  reduction  of  one 
dollar  per  ton  on  the  carriage  of  that  to  market  would  be 
a  saving  to  him  of  $60.  But  if  he  went  to  the  local 
store  every  week  and  took  away  each  time  50  pounds  of 
merchandise,  it  would  amount  at  the  end  of  the  year  to 
only  2,600  pounds,  the  entire  freight  on  which  at  40  cents 
per  hundred  would  be  only  $10' 40.  Thus  if  the  railway 
carried  his  merchandise  for  nothing,  and  charged  him 
five  cents  a  hundred  additional  on  his  grain,  he  would 
be  worse  ojff  by  nearly  50  dollars." 

That  expresses  pretty  clearly  the  fimdamental  policy 
of  American  railroads,  especially  in  the  West,  to  give  the 
lowest  possible  rates  to  the  staple  commodity  of  a  district, 
be  it  lumber,  grain  or  minerals,  and  to  make  the  high- 
grade  freight,  merchandise  and  all  kinds  of  fine  goods, 
pay  for  it.  A  drawback  to  this  benevolent  theory  is 
that  it  turns  the  railroad  into  a  kind  of  special  providence, 
and  places  at  its  mercy  all  the  settlers  along  its  route. 
The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  does  not  admit  the 
special  providence  function  of  the  railroads,  and  asks  to 
have  the  rate-making  power  handed  over  to  it  as  the 
best  solution  of  the  difficulty.  Though  it  has  to  some 
extent  succeeded,  the  railroads,  especially  in  the  West, 
have  still  a  large  discrimination  in  the  making  of  rates 
for  the  good  of    the   district.      They    have   as  a  rule 


LONG  AND  SHORT  HAUL  RATES    215 

used  their  power  well,  and  sometimes  generously,  as,  for 
instance,  in  the  following  case   described  by  Mr.  Hill — 

"  Intelligent  railway  management  is  constantly  called 
upon  to  secure  for  the  producers  on  its  various  lines  a 
market  for  their  productions,  and,  if  possible,  a  return 
load  for  the  car  carrying  such  product  to  market.  We 
have  on  the  Pacific  coast  the  largest  body  of  first-class 
saw  timber  left  in  the  United  States.  When  I  first 
visited  that  country,  with  a  view  to  extending  our  lines 
to  the  coast,  I  saw  at  once  that  unless  we  could  carry 
their  lumber  to  market  at  a  price  that  would  enable 
them  to  manufacture  and  ship  it  with  a  profit,  our  rail- 
road would  have  no  business.  The  first  and  great  crop 
of  that  country  is  its  lumber.  We  made  a  rate  of  40 
cents  a  hundred  for  2,000  miles,  or  four  mills  a  ton  per 
mile,  on  this  lumber,  in  order  that  we  might  load  back 
the  cars  that  carried  out  the  merchandise  to  the  West. 
This  rate  was  necessarily  met  by  other  roads,  and  the 
result  was  the  expansion  of  the  lumber  trade  of  Washing- 
ton and  Oregon,  so  that  to-day  it  is  over  ten  times  what 
it  was  nine  years  ago.  Now  in  place  of  seeking  additional 
loads  for  our  cars  from  the  West,  we  are  seeking  additional 
loads  for  our  west -bound  cars  going  out  to  be  loaded 
with  lumber." 

Seldom  if  ever  has  the  British  railway  manager  an 
opportunity  of  developing  traffic  on  that  magnificent 
scale.  We  have  no  roads  that  can  quote  rates  for  a  haul 
of  2,000  miles.  Neither  have  we  any  that  could  carry 
lumber  for  four  mills  per  ton  per  mile  equal  to  two  and 
a  half  miles  for  a  halfpenny  per  ton.  But  in  the  West 
immense  quantities  of  freight  are  carried  on  these  special 
terms,  and  the  railways,  instead  of  being  ruined  by 
them,  seem  to  thrive  on  them.  On  eastern  and  middle 
state  roads  vast  quantities  of  minerals  and  other  heavy 
commodities  are  being  carried  at  correspondingly  low 
rates.  Not  in  every  district,  of  course,  but  wherever 
the  traffic  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  entitled  to 
special  facihties.  On  short  hauls,  where  the  traffic  is 
too  light  to  require  exceptional  treatment,  American 
rates  may  easily  be  higher  than  British  rates  for  a  similar 


216  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

distance,  but  these  may  be  only  a  few  needles  in  a 
haystack  compared  with  the  enormous  mass  of  long- 
distance freight  being  carried  at  a  mere  fraction  of  the 
corresponding  British  rates. 

Let  us  be  sure  of  comparing  like  with  like  before  we 
attempt  to  decide  the  issue  between  the  two  systems 
by  means  of  a  few  scattered  items.  We  must  all  acknow- 
ledge that  the  rate-making  machinery  in  the  United 
States  is  much  more  elastic  than  our  own.  Every 
American  manager  can  grant  special  rates  under  circum- 
stances similar  to  those  of  Mr.  Hill's  lumber  traffic  from 
the  Pacific  coast.  That  the  power  has  been  used  with 
incalculable  benefit  to  newly-settled  areas  aU  the  recent 
history  of  the  Western  States  bears  witness.  Likewise 
in  the  older  districts  of  the  East,  though  to  a  smaller 
extent,  the  rate-making  power  has  contributed  largely 
to  industrial  development.  Notwithstanding  the  favour- 
itism and  other  abuses  which  have  attended  special 
rates,  they  have  built  up  magnificent  industries  in  every 
part  of  the  Union.  It  may  almost  be  affirmed  that  there 
is  no  great  industry  in  the  United  States  which  does  not 
owe  much  to  the  railroads,  both  in  the  way  of  efficient 
service  and  low  rates.  E very-day  trade  may  not  be 
particularly  well  treated,  but  when  there  is  a  new  district 
to  boom  or  a  new  source  of  traffic  to  develop,  rates  are 
not  allowed  to  stand  in  the  way. 

The  one  limit  always  recognised  is  that  no  train  is  to 
be  run  at  a  loss.  According  to  the  new  school  of  railroad 
economists,  every  train  should  pay  its  expenses  and  leave 
something  over  for  the  road.  Within  these  limits  a 
comparatively  free  hand  is  allowed  to  traffic  managers. 
They  can  have  on  the  same  train  freight  of  many  classes, 
and  at  many  different  rates  :  some  of  them  abnormally 
low,  as,  for  example,  Mr.  Hill's  eight  dollars  per  ton  for 
hauling  lumber  more  than  2,000  miles;  others  high, 
like  Sir  George  Gibb's  selection  of  short-haul  charges. 
To  set  extreme  rates  against  each  other  is  a  rather 
peddling  operation  and  will  not  advance  us  far  toward 
the  main  question,  namely,  the  comparative  merits  of 
the  two  policies,  British  and  American.     Their  respective 


LONG  AND  SHORT  HAUL  RATES    217 

merits  are  steadiness  and  elasticity,  and  may  it  not  be 
that  both  are  carried  rather  far  ?  Our  British  rates 
have  an  almost  cast-iron  firmness,  while  the  American 
ones  are  in  a  continual  state  of  change.  When  the 
railroads  themselves  are  not  shifting  them  about  the 
Literstate  Commerce  Commission  is  being  instigated  to 
level  them  down.  Some  shipper  is  always  appealing 
for  redress  against  discrimination  shown  to  a  rival,  or 
some  town  is  up  in  arms  against  alleged  partiality  shown 
to  neighbouring  towns. 


BOOK   FIFTH— ADMINISTRATIVE 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE   DIRECTORS 

There  are  many  practical  questions  affecting  British 
railways  which,  though  not  far  from  a  century  old,  still 
remain  in  a  very  hazy  condition.  Among  these  are  the 
directorate  and  the  executive.  Even  to  railway  share- 
holders there  are  mysteries  of  the  Board  which  few  are 
daring  enough  to  try  to  penetrate.  Directors  come  and 
go,  but  where  they  come  from  or  where  they  go  to  are 
points  seldom  raised  at  railway  meetings.  Retiring 
directors  are  generally  re-elected  as  a  matter  of  course. 
When  one  dies  full  of  years  and  honours,  the  Board  have 
always  a  successor  ready  to  take  his  place.  Often  he  is 
actually  in  office  before  the  shareholders  know  anything 
about  the  change.  Though  when  a  vacancy  occurs 
through  death  or  otherwise  it  would  be  quite  safe  to 
defer  a  new  election  until  the  next  meeting  of  shareholders, 
that  is  rarely  done.  Directors  apparently  like  to  keep 
their  numbers  intact,  and  as  each  of  them  has  some 
specific  duty,  however  unimportant,  to  perform,  holding 
a  vacant  seat  open  might  entail  extra  work  on  the  others. 

The  distinctive  feature  of  a  British  Railway  Board 
is  that  they  are  practically  co-optive.  A  certain  pro- 
portion of  them  are  semi-official.  A  custom  has  arisen 
lately  of  retiring  the  General  Manager  at  a  comparatively 
early  age,  and  giving  him  a  seat  on  the  Board.  Fre- 
quently, after  a  few  years'  experience,  he  is  elected 
chairman,  which  in  effect  means  that  he  becomes  Greneral 
Manager  again,  but  with  a  freer  hand  and  greater  authority 
than  before.     A  British  railway  chairman  who  has  risen 

218 


THE  DIRECTORS  219 

from  the  ranks  holds  a  much  stronger  position  than  one 
who  has  never  been  anything  but  a  director.  He  corre- 
sponds fairly  well  to  the  American  railway  president, 
who  is  always  a  practical  man. 

Occasionally  a  secretary  becomes  General  Manager, 
and  in  due  time  also  reaches  the  Board  room.  The 
proportion  of  official  directors  is,  however,  small,  espe- 
cially on  our  principal  railways.  Until  lately  it  was 
smallest  on  the  London  and  North- West  em,  the  Midland 
and  the  Great  Western.  A  retiring  soHcitor  like  the  late 
Mr.  Beale  of  the  Midland  may  sometimes  be  rewarded 
for  long  and  valuable  service  with  an  invitation  to  join 
the  Board,  but  these  are  exceptional  cases.  Between 
the  directorate  and  the  executive  there  has  always  been 
a  well-defined  gap  which  few  have  crossed.  Directors 
are  not  expected  to  be  technical  men,  and  as  a  rule  they 
have  no  desire  to  be.  On  the  other  hand,  they  cannot 
be  called  amateurs,  as  the  best  of  them  acquire  a  large 
amount  of  general  knowledge  which  in  its  own  way  may 
be  as  useful  as  technical  skill  and  experience. 

On  every  important  Board  there  is  almost  sure  to  be 
one  or  two  practical  financiers,  whose  counsel  will  be 
valuable  on  financial  matters,  such  as  capital  expenditure 
and  issues  of  new  stock.  Local  landowners  are  also 
largely  represented,  especially  if  they  happen  to  be 
members  of  the  peerage.  This  practice  appears  to  be  a 
legacy  from  the  days  when  it  was  deemed  wise  to  have 
powerful  friends  in  both  Houses  of  Parliament.  They 
have  not  been  figureheads,  however,  as  the  names  of 
Lord  Redesdale,  Lord  Wharncliffe,  Lord  Allerton  and 
Lord  Stalbridge  abimdantly  testify.  It  is  a  noteworthy 
fact  that  on  our  most  successful  railway  Boards  the 
percentage  of  peers  and  their  relatives  is  considerable. 
On  the  London  and  North- Western  there  were  in  the 
late  Lord  Stalbridge's  time  five  peers  and  three  junior 
members  of  the  peerage,  very  nearly  one-half  of  the  whole 
twenty  directors.  Add  two  or  three  large  landowners, 
and  it  will  be  seen  how  strong  the  landed  interest  continues 
to  be  in  our  railway  system. 

No  other  Board  is  quite  so  patrician  as  that  at  Euston, 


220  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

but  failing  peers  they  draw  largely  on  the  baronetage 
and  the  Privy  Council.  The  Great  Western  has  not  only 
Viscount  Churchill  for  its  chairman  and  two  peers  on 
its  Audit  Committee,  but  the  Board  itself  presents  a 
strong  array  of  **  Sirs "  and  "  Honourables."  The 
Midland  is  the  most  plebeian  of  the  trunk  lines,  having 
only  one  peer  on  the  Board  and  two  baronets.  As  if  to 
accentuate  these  defects,  it  has  two  earls  on  its  Audit 
Committee.  Neither  is  the  landed  interest  so  strong 
on  it  as  on  the  other  trunk  lines.  That  may  be  partly 
due  to  its  having  a  smaller  Board  to  start  with.  While 
the  London  and  the  North- Western  requires  twenty 
directors  and  the  Great  Western  nineteen,  the  Midland 
gets  along  with  fifteen. 

Next  in  importance  to  the  landed  interest  on  our 
railway  Boards  is  what  may  be  distinguished  as  the 
business  element.  This  consists  of  colliery  proprietors, 
ironmasters,  manufacturers,  shipowners  and  others,  who 
are  supposed  to  be  "  able  to  bring  business  "  to  the  rail- 
way. At  first  glance  it  may  seem  to  be  an  immense 
advantage  to  a  company  to  have  in  its  directorate  men 
who  have  at  their  disposal  thousands  of  tons  of  freight 
weekly.  The  traffic  of  a  great  brewery,  or  a  huge  iron- 
works, or  a  big  steamship  line  is  something  to  be  coveted 
by  any  railway.  A  seat  on  the  Board  would  seem  to  be 
a  small  price  to  pay  for  it,  and  so  it  would  be  if  an  even 
balance  could  always  be  maintained  between  the  interests 
of  the  railway  and  those  of  the  directors  who  are  customers 
as  well  as  directors. 

That,  however,  is  no  trifling  risk  to  take  even  with 
men  of  scrupulous  honour,  as  a  large  majority  of  British 
railway  directors  undoubtedly  are.  Not  a  few  railway 
shareholders  are  fully  alive  to  the  drawbacks  of  such  an 
arrangement  and  its  possibihties  of  abuse,  but  it  is  too 
dehcate  a  question  to  discuss  at  public  meetings  or  even 
in  the  press.  They  have  no  fear  of  trading  or  shipping 
directors  taking  advantage  of  their  position  to  secure 
pecimiary  privileges  in  the  way  of  rates  or  services,  but 
there  are  even  more  important  occasions  on  which  duty 
to  the  railway  may  clash  with  private  considerations. 


THE  DIRECTORS  221 

Cases  have  actually  occurred  in  which  large  concessions 
have  been  made  to  the  employees  of  a  railway  without 
apparent  cause  or  justification.  But  the  key  to  the 
puzzle  might  be  shrewdly  suspected  in  the  district.  On 
the  Board  there  might  be  owners  of  large  works  dependent 
on  the  railway  for  their  raw  materials  and  the  marketing 
of  their  goods.  Even  a  few  days'  stoppage  of  the  railway 
might  cause  them  serious  inconvenience  and  loss,  while 
a  prolonged  strike  might  mean  ruin.  Such  directors 
would  be  superhuman  if  they  did  not  go  to  the  farthest 
limit  of  compromise,  and  at  all  hazards  try  to  avert 
the  cutting  off  of  their  supplies. 

Another  possible  case  is  where  a  railway  director  is 
heavily  interested  in  the  collieries  of  a  particular  district 
which  is  one  of  several  served  by  the  railway.  Without 
any  positive  unfairness  or  injustice  the  district  which  is 
most  strongly  represented  on  the  railway  Board  may  be 
fostered  at  the  expense  of  the  others.  It  may  be  more 
promptly  and  liberally  furnished  with  wagons,  or  the 
collieries  which  own  their  own  wagons  may  have  them 
more  promptly  returned  when  empty.  It  may  have 
greater  facilities  given  it  for  reaching  distant  markets. 
It  may  be  assisted  to  overcome  geographical  difficulties 
while  less-favoured  districts  only  get  what  the  law 
entitles  them  to.  Discrimination  has  never  reached 
such  a  height  here  as  it  did  years  ago  on  the  American 
railways,  but  it  was  never  altogether  absent.  The  last 
generation  of  railway  directors  and  managers  never 
pretended  to  be  absolutely  neutral. 

The  shipowning  director  may  be  even  more  formidable 
than  the  colliery  owner.  The  first  object  of  his  thoughts 
is  an  up-to-date  harbour  with  deep-water  docks,  the 
latest  dock  equipment  and  the  most  reasonable  charges. 
If  a  generous  railway  company  will  build  such  an  harbour 
for  him,  or  even  provide  him  with  deep-water  jetties, 
he  will  be  everlastingly  grateful.  He  may  not  wait  to 
consider  that  such  an  harbour  may  cost  the  company 
millions  of  money  and  then  may  not  earn  its  working 
expenses,  let  alone  interest  on  the  new  capital  expended. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  shipowning  director  may  get  the 


222  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

benefit  of  very  complete  and  expeditious  shipping  facilities 
at  a  merely  nominal  rate. 

Although  a  trading  director  may  have  no  personal 
interest  likely  to  clash  with  that  of  his  railway,  he  is  apt 
to  share  the  bias  of  the  trading  community  against 
railway  companies.  Almost  from  the  beginning  the 
railway  and  the  traders  have  regarded  each  other  as 
natural  enemies.  They  are  still  far  from  a  good  under- 
standing— almost  as  far,  indeed,  as  the  railway  Boards 
and  the  railway-men.  But  even  so  the  trading  director 
with  all  his  risks  is  a  much-coveted  acquisition.  Few 
railway  Boards  would  refuse  a  director  who  could  put 
£1,000  a  week  of  traffic  on  the  line.  He  need  not  fear 
refusal,  for  he  is  always  in  demand. 

With  the  British  public  the  reputation  of  being  "  a 
business  man  "  goes  a  long  way.  It  matters  very  little 
in  what  line  of  business  the  reputation  may  have  been 
acquired.  It  will  serve  equally  well  whether  obtained 
at  the  head  of  a  joint  stock  bank,  or  a  great  railway,  or 
a  public  department.  The  man  in  the  street  never 
specialises.  Success  in  any  line  of  life  means  to  him 
a  mysterious  kind  of  ability  which  in  any  other  sphere, 
however  different,  might  be  equally  fortunate.  He  does 
not  understand  that  there  are  vocations  which  require 
the  continuous  training  of  a  lifetime.  Of  these  the  most 
strenuous  is  railway  administration. 

The  notion  that  any  good  business  man  can  become  a 
successful  railway  director  was  much  stronger  in  the 
Victorian  Age  than  it  is  now.  Some  remarkable  recruits 
then  found  their  way  into  railway  Board  rooms.  A 
subordinate  place  in  the  Government  of  the  day  was 
supposed  to  be  a  special  qualification  for  railway  service. 
Local  members  of  Parliament  felt  themselves  passed 
over  if  a  vacancy  on  the  Board  of  the  local  railway  was 
not  offered  to  them.  At  times  they  could  fly  at  much 
higher  game.  Ministers  retiring  from  office  with  a  decent 
record  might  even  have  a  chairmanship  offered  to  them. 
This  actually  happened  to  the  late  Mr.  W.  H.  Smith  after 
his  first  term  at  the  Admiralty. 

The  London  and  North-Western  Board  of  that  day 


THE  DIRECTORS  223 

were  at  a  loss  to  find  a  worthy  successor  to  their  ideal 
chairman,  Sir  Richard  Moon.  They  offered  the  position 
to  Mr.  Smith,  whose  experience  of  railway  operations  had 
hitherto  been  confined  to  the  bookstalls.  He  modestly 
pointed  out  that  there  was  a  considerable  difference 
between  managing  the  bookstalls  and  running  the  entire 
railway.  It  is  possible  that  the  London  and  North- 
western missed  a  great  chairman  through  Mr.  Smith's 
modesty,  one  perhaps  who  would  now  be  ranking  with  Sir 
Richard  Moon  himself.  On  the  other  hand,  their  idea 
that  any  kind  of  a  good  business  man  has  in  him  the 
making  of  a  first-rate  railway  director  or  even  of  a  brilHant 
chairman  was  certainly  wrong.  It  could  only  have 
existed  in  the  amateur  stage  of  railway  science. 

A  similar  idea  prevailed  also  in  our  banking  world, 
and  it  survives  there  even  more  strongly  than  among  our 
railways.  So  conspicuous  an  example  of  purely  "  busi- 
ness "  administration  as  the  Bank  of  England  has 
presented  throughout  its  whole  career  could  not  fail  to 
influence  for  good  or  evil,  or  both,  all  kindred  institutions. 
It  established  the  precedent  of  a  great  financial  institution 
conducted  by  merchants  and  other  plain  business  men 
without  the  help  of  specialists.  The  Bank  of  France  has 
an  official  Governor  with  a  handsome  salary  who  is  an 
expert  in  all  branches  of  banking,  domestic  and  inter- 
national. The  Imperial  Bank  of  Germany  has  not  only 
a  banking  expert  at  its  head,  but  he  is  surrounded  by 
a  group  of  experts  with  whom  he  can  always  take  counsel 
in  emergencies. 

Compared  with  such  authorities  on  banking  and  finance 
the  directors  of  the  Bank  of  England  may  without  offence 
be  termed  amateurs.  That,  however,  is  not  an  unmiti- 
gated drawback.  In  international  banking  it  is  quite 
possible  to  be  too  clever  and  too  adventurous.  There 
are  times  when  a  few  grains  of  Engfish  caution  may  be 
worth  any  quantity  of  French  or  German  skill. 

On  the  same  principle  the  British  railway  director  may 
be  regarded  as  an  amateur  compared  with  his  German 
and  American  colleagues.  He  seldom  possesses  a  shi-ed 
of  their  technical  science,  either  in  the  matter  of  accounts 


224  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

or  of  operating.  His  ideas  of  "  ton  miles  "  and  "  passenger 
miles  "  may  still  be  extremely  hazy  notwithstanding  all 
the  learned  discussions  and  expositions  which  these 
ethereal  units  have  undergone  during  the  past  decade. 
But  against  aU  his  technical  defects  and  shortcomings 
can  be  set  the  inestimable  gift  of  trustworthiness.  He 
is  a  perfectly  "  safe  "  man  in  all  his  administrative 
functions — ^safe  in  his  judgment,  in  his  traditional  policy, 
and  in  the  routine  work  of  his  office. 

Of  course  he  has  his  weaknesses,  but  as  a  rule  they 
are  not  personal.  They  originate  in  the  peculiar  system 
under  which  he  has  been  trained,  and  in  the  conventions 
which  he  has  inherited  from  his  predecessors.  Until 
recently  his  chief  weakness  was  reticence  and  a  love  of 
official  secrecy.  In  this  he  took  after  liis  friends  and 
models  in  Threadneedle  Street.  When  the  first  railway 
companies  were  formed  the  ideal  directorate  was  that 
of  the  Bank  of  England,  which  never  publishes  any 
accounts,  and  never  sees  its  shareholders  more  than  a 
few  minutes  twice  a  year,  when  it  announces  to  them  the 
dividends  they  are  about  to  receive,  for  which  they  are 
expected  to  be  duly  thankful. 

As  for  the  public,  they  are  thought  of,  though  of  course 
not  spoken  about  in  the  classical  language  of  the  late 
Commodore  Vanderbilt.  In  the  early  days  of  joint-stock 
companies  the  pubHc  as  such  were  not  recognised  either 
legally  or  officially.  Even  the  shareholders  were  almost 
a  negligible  quantity.  Railway  Boards  took  at  the  very 
outset  very  high  gromid  in  this  respect.  They  repudiated 
all  responsibility  to  the  State  beyond  what  might  be 
necessary  to  ensure  the  safety  of  passengers  and  property 
in  transit  on  the  railway.  The  earliest  text-book  of 
railway  economy — that  of  Dr.  Lardner  published  in 
1850 — shows  what  an  exalted  idea  the  pioneer  directors 
had  of  their  office.     In  one  passage  he  says — 

"  This  demand  (for  some  efficient  system  of  control) 
was  opposed  by  railway  directors  and  parties  under  their 
influence,  who  went  so  far  as  to  deny  the  right  of  Parlia- 
ment to  interfere  with  their  concerns,  assimilating  their 
estabhshments  to  those  of  banks,  insurance  offices,  dock 


THE  DIRECTORS  226 

companies  and  other  industrial  associations.  These 
parties  indignantly  rejected  all  control,  and  even  com- 
plained of  the  system  of  publishing  periodical  reports, 
partial  and  imperfect  as  it  has  been,  which  the  law  and 
public  opinion  has  exacted  from  them,  as  a  grievance. 
They  declared  that  any  interference  with  the  affairs 
of  railway  companies,  or  any  compulsory  publication  of 
their  proceedings,  or  any  report  of  the  state  of  their 
financial  concerns  is  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  capital 
as  gross  and  unjustifiable  as  would  be  the  same  measure 
if  adopted  with  reference  to  the  mercantile  transactions 
of  Rothschilds,  Barings,  or  any  other  private  estabHsh- 
ment.  They  admit  that  Government  may  so  far  interfere 
as  to  provide  for  the  safety  and  convenience  of  the  pubUc 
in  travelling.  But  beyond  this  they  denounce  all  legisla- 
tive or  State  intervention  in  their  affairs."  ^ 

Dr.  Lardner  himself  was  an  advocate  of  publicity, 
as  the  following  extract  indicates — 

"It  is  sometimes  contended  that  railways  being 
commercial  companies  whose  concerns  affect  only  their 
respective  shareholders,  publicity  should  not  be  exacted 
from  them,  and  that  the  shareholders  alone  have  the  right 
to  be  informed  of  the  affairs  of  their  administration  and 
management.  But  to  this  it  may  be  answered,  that 
nothing  short  of  publicity  can  bring  such  information 
to  the  knowledge  of  bodies  so  large  and  fluctuating  as 
those  of  railway  shareholders.  By  what  means  short 
of  general  publicity,  for  example,  could  a  body  hke  the 
proprietors  of  the  North-Western  Railway  acquire  a 
clear,  full  and  satisfactory  knowledge  of  the  affairs  of 
that  vast  enterprise  ?  "  ^ 

What  would  Dr.  Lardner 's  contemporaries  p-t^  Eust^m 
have  said  of  the  present  situation  as  regards  Grovernment 
control,  parliamentary  restrictions  and  all-round  interfer- 
ence? If  their  official  dignity  was  outraged  by  the 
statutory  accounts  prescribed  to  them  in  1868,  what 
would  they  think  of  the  tenfold  more  complex  and 
elaborate  returns  required  of  them  by  the  Railway 
1  Dr.  Lardner's  Railway  Economy,  edition  1850,  p.  506. 
«  Ibid.,  p.  524. 


226  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

Accounts  Act  of  last  session  ?  But  bad  as  they  might 
have  seemed,  these  would  have  been  small  horrors  to 
them  beside  the  Conciliation  Boards,  the  Minimum  Wage 
Acts  and  the  thousand  and  one  pin-pricks  of  the  trade 
imions.  What  they  might  have  thought  of  stamp- 
licking  it  is  happily  needless  to  attempt  to  put  in 
words. 

The  British  railway  director  as  he  has  been  here  briefly 
sketched  is  sui  generis.  It  would  be  useless  to  look  for 
a  counterpart  of  him  in  any  other  country.  Even  in  our 
own  colonies  he  has  reproduced  himself  to  a  very  limited 
extent,  and  what  there  is  of  him  is  rapidly  dying  out. 
He  is  giving  way  to  a  more  strenuous  and  professional 
type  of  director.  At  one  time  railway  Boards  in  the 
United  States  followed  the  British  model.  They  were  if 
possible  more  conventional,  for  they  seldom  attempted 
to  exercise  any  control  over  the  operating  of  the  road. 
Their  special  function  was  to  finance  it.  In  emergencies, 
as  when  working  expenses  had  to  be  ruthlessly  cut  down, 
they  might  put  pressure  on  the  executive,  but  otherwise 
the  latter  had  a  free  hand. 

Since  American  railways  got  out  of  the  hands  of  New 
York  bankers  and  Wall  Street  gamblers  their  directorates 
have  become  less  financial  and  more  operative.  They 
now  include  a  fair  number  of  executive  officers,  and 
though  the  outside  directors  may  still  be  in  a  majority, 
they  would  never  attempt  to  over-rule  the  men  who  are 
responsible  for  the  working  of  the  road.  Thus  on  the 
existing  Board  of  the  Canadian  Pacific  Railway,  which 
may  be  considered  the  last  word  on  the  American  system, 
there  are  five  high  officials  or  ex-officials  out  of  a  total 
of  fifteen.  A  full  third  of  the  directors  have  served 
their  time  on  the  road,  and  are  personally  familiar  with 
the  whole  routine  of  its  operations. 

Besides,  there  is  an  Executive  Committee  of  half-a- 
dozen  which  forms  an  inner  council  of  the  Board.  Its 
members  are  the  President,  Sir  Thomas  Shaughnessy, 
the  ex-President,  Sir  William  Van  Home,  the  first  Vice- 
President,  Mr.  David  McNicoU,  and  three  of  the  oldest 
directors,    Lord    Strathcona,    Sir    Edmund    Osier    and 


THE  DIRECTORS  227 

Mr.  R.  B.  Angus.  Inside  of  the  inner  council  there  is 
possibly  a  still  smaller  one  consisting  of  the  men  who  are 
always  on  the  spot— say  the  President  and  the  fu-st  Vice- 
President.  By  this  arrangement  of  wheels  within  wheels 
a  concentration  of  authority  in  one  or  two  hands  is 
achieved  without  going  the  length  of  absolute  autocracy. 
The  men  at  the  wheel  have  to  answer  to  the  Executive 
Committee,  which  in  its  turn  has  to  answer  to  the  Board 
of  Directors. 

But  here  directorial  authority  may  be  said  to  stop. 
It  is  true  that  the  shareholders  meet  once  a  year  at 
Montreal,  but  their  meetings  are  even  more  of  a  comedy 
than  those  performed  on  similar  occasions  at  Euston  and 
Paddington.  Hardly  one  in  five  hundred  shareholders 
can  attend  personally,  and  all  the  proxies  are  sent  as 
a  matter  of  course  to  the  Board.  It  is  consequently 
more  absolute  and  farther  removed  from  the  control 
of  the  actual  proprietors  of  the  stock  than  any  British 
Board  could  ever  be.  Whether  or  not  that  be  best  for 
the  shareholders,  it  is  an  ideal  arrangement  for  the 
operating  officials. 

British  Railway  Boards  have  also  their  wheels  within 
wheels,  but  generally  of  quite  a  different  kind  from  the 
American  and  Canadian  ones.  The  whole  Board  is  sub- 
divided into  committees  in  much  the  same  way  as  town 
councils  are.  Each  committee  has  a  particular  branch 
of  administration  to  look  after.  One  has  to  take  finance, 
another  stores,  a  third  the  locomotive  service,  a  fourth 
the  maintenance  of  way,  and  so  on.  A  new  director 
begins  on  the  simple  business  of  the  line,  and  moves 
upward  until  he  reaches  the  highest  committee,  which 
is  generally  finance.  When  he  has  made  the  full  round 
his  directorial  education  is  supposed  to  be  complete. 

But  in  railway  business  the  cleverest  and  most  experi- 
enced man  is  always  learning.  It  used  to  be  made  a 
reproach  to  railway  directors  that  they  had  no  age  limit 
and  stuck  too  long  to  their  job.  During  the  agitation 
of  1907  over  the  threatened  national  strike,  patriarchal 
portraits  of  them  were  published  which  suggested  that 
most   of   them   were   centenarians.     Their   average   age 


228  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

has  declined  a  good  deal  since  then,  but  it  is  still  higher 
than  obtains  in  any  other  profession  except  perhaps 
politics.  Parliamentary  polemics  and  railway  administra- 
tion seem  to  be  both  favourable  to  longevity.  Whatever 
the  reason,  railway  directors  seldom  die  young. 


CHAPTER  XX 

THE   EXECUTIVE   OFFICERS 

There  is  not  a  great  deal  of  humour  in  our  railway 
system,  but  diligent  search  may  be  rewarded  with  some 
curious  anomalies.  Strange  to  say,  the  most  interesting 
of  them  are  of  legal  origin .  For  example,  the  law  demands 
of  railway  companies  only  two  statutory  officials,  and 
neither  of  them  is  the  chairman  or  the  Greneral  Manager. 
A  railway  can  be  quite  legal  without  either  of  the  latter, 
but  it  cannot  dispense  with  a  secretary  and  a  treasurer. 
Their  duties  are  carefully  specified  in  most  of  the  Acts 
incorporating  railways.  Everything  else  connected  with 
the  executive  is  optional.  This  freedom  of  action  with 
regard  to  the  operating  officials  has  enabled  the  companies 
to  develop  a  very  elastic  system  of  management. 

The  British  railway  executive  has  undergone  a  long 
process  of  evolution,  and  it  is  still  evolving  higher  and 
more  complex  forms.  A  sarcastic  writer  of  the  last 
generation  thus  spoke  of  it  as  it  existed  then — 

"  In  a  general  way  it  may  be  said  that  Parliament 
in  passing  railway  Bills  contemplates  the  need  of  a 
secretary  and  treasurer  only;  the  former  to  keep  the 
records  and  the  register,  the  latter  to  keep  the  cash. 
In  its  wisdom  it  has  seen  fit  to  assume  that  a  general 
management,  a  general  superintendence,  a  locomotive 
superintendence,  an  engineer  of  the  permanent  way,  and 
a  goods  manager  are  quite  imneeded  for  the  development 
and  the  working  of  traffic.  It  has  nothing  to  say  for  or 
of  these  offices,  but  it  clearly  defines  the  functions  of  the 
secretary  and  the  treasurer." 

At  first  the  duties  of  secretary  were  usually  combined 
with    those    of    the    General    Manager.     An    assistant 


230  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

secretary  did  the  office  work,  while  his  chief  attended  to 
the  managerial  business.  In  the  list  of  officials  the 
treasurer  follows  the  secretary,  and  after  him  comes  the 
operating  staff.  In  1848  the  Caledonian  Railway  appears 
to  have  had  a  resident  engineer  working  under  the 
direction  of  a  firm  of  consulting  engineers.  There  were 
only  three  other  head  officials  deemed  worth  mentioning 
in  the  directors'  reports.  These  were  the  Traffic  Super- 
intendent, the  Locomotive  Superintendent  and  the  Goods 
Manager.  Each  of  these  single-handed  officials  has  now 
blossomed  out  into  probably  hundreds. 

The  solicitors  of  the  company  invariably  receive 
prominent  mention.  While  land  was  being  bought, 
right  of  way  being  acquired,  and  all  sorts  of  agreements 
being  negotiated,  law  was  the  most  important  factor 
in  railway  development,  and  its  practitioners  were 
honoured  accordingly.  The  smaller  railways  often  tried 
to  get  on  without  a  Greneral  Manager,  but  they  never 
dreamed  of  dispensing  with  a  solicitor.  They  went  to 
the  other  extreme,  and  often  paid  nearly  as  much  for 
legal  advice  as  they  did  for  locomotive  power.  The 
treasurer  did  not  always  get  his  proper  legal  title.  Some- 
times his  old  name,  which  had  been  used  in  the  coaching 
days,  stuck  to  him,  and  he  was  known  as  "  cashier  "  or 
**  cashier  and  book-keeper." 

Occasionally  a  bank  undertakes  to  act  as  treasurer — 
a  precedent  which  has  been  followed  by  many  of  the  local 
authorities  of  to-day.  In  1848  the  title  of  "  inspector  '* 
begins  to  crop  up,  and  about  the  same  time  auditors  are 
first  mentioned.  In  a  few  cases  the  engineer  acts  also 
as  manager,  while  in  the  colliery  districts  a  separate 
paanager  is  appointed  for  mineral  traffic.  But  even  on 
the  principal  lines,  such  as  the  Caledonian  and  the 
Edinburgh  and  Glasgow,  the  operating  staffs  were 
absurdly  small  according  to  modern  ideas.  So  also  were 
the  Boards  of  Directors.  A  dozen  was  the  outside  number 
and  often  it  was  as  small  as  half-a-dozen.  Four  or  five 
officials  were  the  maximum,  and  they  might  drop  in 
some  cases  to  two. 

A  quarter  of  a  century  later  railway  organisation  had 


THE  EXECUTIVE  OFFICERS  231 

become  very  different  from  what  it  was  in  1848.  A 
legion  of  Chief  Managers,  Assistant  Managers,  Super- 
intendents, Assistant  Superintendents,  District  Super- 
intendents and  Inspectors,  had  taken  the  place  of  the 
Secretary  and  Manager  rolled  into  one.  The  magnitude 
of  the  evolution  may  be  gathered  from  Mr.  Findlay's 
account  of  the  London  and  North-Westem  staff  in  his 
day— 

'*  The  executive  management  of  the  line  is  carried  on 
by  a  General  Manager,  a  Chief  Groods  Manager  with  two 
i^sistants  (one  for  the  outdoor  working  and  one  for  the 
indoor  working — making  of  rates,  etc.),  and  a  Super- 
intendent of  the  line  with  one  assistant.  .  .  .  For  ad- 
ministrative purposes  the  entire  system  is  divided  into 
ten  sections  or  districts,  each  of  which  is  under  the 
control  of  an  officer  of  tried  and  practical  experience 
termed  the  District  Superintendent.  ...  In  some  of  the 
less  important  districts  the  District  Superintendents  are 
responsible  for  the  goods  work  at  the  stations  as  well  as 
the  conduct  of  the  passenger  traffic,  and  in  that  case 
they  are  answerable  both  to  the  Chief  Goods  Manager 
and  to  the  Superintendent  of  the  line ;  but  in  six  of  the 
more  important  districts  they  are  relieved  of  the  manage- 
ment of  the  goods  business  (except  as  to  the  working 
of  the  trains)  by  district  officers  of  equal  rank  with 
themselves,  who  are  called  District  Goods  Managers,  and 
who  are  responsible  to  the  Chief  Goods  Manager  at 
Euston." 

A  concise  summary  of  the  duties  and  responsibihties 
of  a  modern  railway  manager  will  be  foimd  in  Mr.  Fisher's 
standard  book  on  Railway  Accounts  and  Fiwitwe — 

**  Traffic  receiving,  forwarding,  exchange  arrangements 
and  negotiation  of  agreements;  the  relief  of  congested 
districts  or  development  of  traffic  in  poor  locahties ;  the 
adaptation  of  rates  and  charges  to  the  necessities  of 
various  trades ;  the  provision  of  suitable  accommodation ; 
block  interlocking  and  other  signalling  arrangements; 
the  framing  of  rules  for  the  guidance  of  the  staff  m  every 
conceivable  emergency  in  working  the  traffic ;  the  most 
suitable  kind  of  brake,  wheel,  axle,  coupling  or  even 


232  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

carriage-door  fastening — these  and  a  thousand  other 
details  require  the  constant  and  careful  consideration  of 
the  General  Manager  and  Heads  of  Departments  by  whom 
he  is  assisted  and  advised." 

It  might  have  been  added  that  these  multitudinous 
duties  are  being  continually  multiplied  and  increased, 
until  now  there  is  hardly  an  art  or  science  or  a  branch 
of  business  with  which  a  General  Manager  should  not 
have  at  least  a  bowing  acquaintance.  Since  the  first 
edition  of  Mr.  Fisher's  book  was  published  about  twenty 
years  ago,  the  sphere  of  railway  activity  has  been  greatly 
enlarged.  It  now  includes  catering  for  passengers  on 
the  trains,  hotel-keeping  at  all  the  principal  stations, 
running  coaches  in  the  touring  season,  compihng  and 
publishing  guide-books,  and  in  some  cases  managing  the 
bookstalls. 

These  "  side  shows,"  as  they  are  sometimes  called, 
added  to  the  engine  and  carriage  building  works  which 
most  railway  companies  maintain,  impose  on  the  manage- 
ment an  immense  amount  of  labour  and  anxiety  outside 
of  its  proper  functions.  In  such  a  crowd  of  extraneous 
operations  the  original  and  proper  object  of  a  railway  as 
a  public  carrier  is  apt  to  be  overlooked,  or  at  least  to  be 
blurred  in  the  public  mind.  It  is  an  open  question  which 
may  soon  have  to  be  seriously  considered,  whether  the 
railway  companies  would  not  have  done  better  for  them- 
selves by  resisting  the  temptation  to  go  so  far  afield 
as  they  have  done  in  search  of  supplementary  profits. 
Frequently  they  have  found  that  they  were  running  after 
a  will-o'-the-wisp,  and  even  when  the  supplementary 
profits  were  realised  they  may  not  have  proved  an  un- 
mixed benefit.  The  road  may  have  suffered  for  them 
in  another  way. 

The  safe  and  successful  working  of  a  great  railway 
system  must  in  its  very  simplest  form  be  an  anxious  and 
laborious  occupation.  In  order  to  ensure  the  highest 
degree  of  efficiency  the  obvious  course  is  to  enable  every 
member  of  the  executive  staff,  from  the  General  Manager 
downward,  to  concentrate  his  attention  and  his  energies 
on  the  special  business  of  the  railway.     Any  irrelevant 


THE  EXECUTIVE   OFFICERS  233 

or  extraneous  duty  that  is  imposed  on  the  management 
must  weaken  to  some  extent  its  hold  on  the  main  object 
for  which  railways  exist,  namely,  rapid  and  economical 
transportation.  Important  matters  may  then  have  to 
suffer  for  unimportant  ones. 

Sir  William  Van  Home,  when  he  was  President  of  the 
Canadian  Pacific  Railway,  was  once  asked  what  had  given 
him  most  trouble  in  organising  that  now  magnificent 
road. .  He  replied  half  in  joke  that  "  it  was  finding  the 
best  coffee  in  the  market  for  the  company's  new  hotels." 
He  could  at  least  plead  that  a  special  service  of  hotels 
was  absolutely  necessary  to  the  Canadian  Pacific  at  the 
outset  of  its  career,  but  few  British  railways  can  adopt 
that  plea.  Most  of  their  hotel  ventures  might  have  been 
better  left  to  private  enterprise,  while  some  of  them 
could  have  been  well  dispensed  with  altogether. 

The  same  argument  applies  still  more  strongly  to  the 
huge  and  costly  machine  shops  which  all  our  trunk  lines 
have  set  up  for  themselves.  It  is  practically  certain 
that  the  work  done  in  these  shops  might  as  a  rule  be 
more  cheaply  done  outside.  The  management  has  all 
the  trouble  and  expense  of  looking  after  them  combined 
with  the  uncomfortable  feeling  that  it  is  losing  by  them 
into  the  bargain.  Another  swarm  of  extraneous  officials 
is  employed  in  railway  docks  which  do  not  always  pay 
working  expenses,  and  very  seldom  yield  a  decent  return 
on  their  cost.  In  connection  with  them  lines  of  steamers 
are  run  here,  there  and  everywhere,  often  regardless  of 
the  traffic  there  may  be  for  them. 

Some  of  these  points  have  already  been  discussed 
from  the  traffic  point  of  view,  but  we  have  to  consider 
them  here  in  relation  to  the  railway  staff  and  its  efficiency. 
^Vhether  or  not  they  be  good  business  for  the  railways 
is  one  question,  and  what  their  effect  may  be  on  the  staff 
is  another.  Prima  facie  the  excessive  multiplication  of 
officials,  and  especially  of  officials  who  have  no  connection 
with  the  traffic,  is  undesirable.  A  passenger  train 
encumbered  with  cooks,  waiters,  barbers  and  ladies' 
maids  is  like  an  army  burdened  with  camp  followers. 
It  has  to  carry  a  large  amount  of  useless  weight,  which 


234  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

often  increases  the  train  expenses  more  than  the  train 
receipts. 

But  the  gravest  objection  to  complicating  and  confusing 
the  proper  business  of  the  railways  by  "  side  shows  "  is 
its  tendency  to  aggravate  the  ever-present  labour  trouble. 
The  mere  numerical  increase  of  a  company's  employees 
has  an  exciting  effect  on  them.  A  big  crowd  once 
started  is  naturally  much  more  difficult  to  control  than 
a  small  one.  There  are  evident  limits  to  the  number 
of  work-people  that  any  employer,  whether  an  individual 
or  a  company,  can  properly  control.  If  our  tnmk  lines 
have  not  already  exceeded  these  limits  they  must  be 
very  close  to  them.  In  my  own  opinion  they  have  been 
passed  on  our  trunk  lines.  How  can  any  Board  of 
Directors  control  eighty  thousand  employees,  which  is 
understood  to  be  the  number  that  the  London  and  North- 
western has  now  reached?  Such  an  army  of  men  and 
boys  massed  together  and  kept  in  a  state  of  chronic 
discontent  by  leaders  whose  living  depends  upon  it  is 
not  in  a  mental  state  to  submit  to  the  discipline  essential 
to  the  safe  and  economical  working  of  a  busy  railway. 

Careful  observers  of  the  growth  of  labour  unrest 
cannot  have  failed  to  see  that  it  has  kept  pace  with  the 
growing  complexity  of  the  railway  service  and  the  new 
functions  that  are  continually  being  added  to  it.  A 
modern  hotel  train  carries  a  retinue  of  attendants  which 
would  have  served  for  a  royal  progress  in  less  luxurious 
days  than  these.  All  the  new  functionaries  have  not 
only  to  be  paid,  but  they  have  to  be  well  paid.  They 
have  to  live  up  to  their  surroundings,  and  the  old- 
fashioned  pound  a  week  is  not  good  enough  for  them  by 
a  long  way.  They  force  on  the  company  a  new  standard 
of  wages  which  has  to  be  extended  by  degrees  to  all  the 
lower  grades.  In  the  hands  of  a  clever  trade  unionist 
labour  unrest  is  a  powerful  lever  for  raising  wages.  It 
is  being  systematically  used  for  that  purpose,  and  the 
larger  the  number  of  persons  in  any  one  employment 
the  worse  the  unrest  is  likely  to  become. 

While  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  railway 
managers  have  been  growing  year  by  year  both  in  numbers 


THE  EXECUTIVE  OFFICERS  236 

and  magnitude,  the  executive  organisation  has  undergone 
no  corresponding  development.  It  remains  very  much 
on  the  primitive  lines  of  its  infancy.  Its  ideas,  regula- 
tions and  methods  are  often  those  of  eighty  years  ago. 
It  cannot  be  accused  of  excessive  subdivision  or  com- 
plexity. Compared  with  the  continental  or  the  American 
organisations  of  executive  officers  it  is  decidedly  primitive. 
The  most  striking  of  its  various  anomalies  is  that  it 
seems  to  ignore  the  passenger  service,  and  readers  will 
naturally  wonder  how  that  is  supervised.  They  may 
easily  gratify  their  curiosity  by  writing  to  Euston  or 
Paddington  for  tickets  to  be  used  on  a  certain  day.  If 
the  correct  price  is  enclosed  in  the  letter  the  tickets  will 
arrive  in  due  course.  Probably  there  will  be  a  printed 
slip  sent  along  with  them  showing  that  they  emanate  from 
the  office  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Line. 

This  may  excite  fresh  wonder.  Why,  it  may  be  asked, 
should  the  Superintendent  of  the  Line  have  the  issuing 
of  passenger  tickets  included  among  his  multifarious 
and  most  of  them  very  responsible  duties  ?  His  proper 
business  is  the  supervision  of  the  roadway  and  the  work- 
ing of  the  trains.  At  one  time,  when  the  traffic  was 
infinitesimal  compared  with  what  it  is  now,  he  may 
also  have  had  general  charge  of  the  goods  and  passengers 
in  transit.  When  the  goods  traffic  became  too  heavy 
for  him  to  attend  to,  it  was  handed  over  to  a  new  official 
now  known  as  the  Groods  Manager.  The  latter  has 
gradually  become  an  important  chief  with  a  large  staff 
of  assistants  posted  all  over  the  system  at  the  principal 
centres  of  traffic. 

But  somehow  the  passenger  business  was  left  entirely 
in  the  hands  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Line.  No 
British  railway  has  a  special  passenger  department  or  an 
officially  designated  passenger  agent.  There  is  doubtless 
in  the  Superintendent's  office  a  special  staff  for  that  branch 
of  the  work,  but  it  has  no  distinctive  name,  and  to  the 
outer  world  it  is  unknown.  Though  it  is  the  passenger 
service  that  the  public  see  most  of  and  are  most  concerned 
in,  it  has  for  them  the  least  individuality  of  aU.  They 
cannot  penetrate  beyond  the  booking  office,  and  it  is  little 


236  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

enough  they  are  allowed  to  see  even  there.  In  the  early 
days  the  booking  office  was  the  only  place  where  tickets 
could  be  obtained.  The  American  plan  of  having  branch 
offices  all  over  town  and  ticket  stands  in  hotels  and  stores 
was  not  followed  in  London  until  a  comparatively  recent 
period.  In  its  place  we  had  a  remarkable  development 
of  excursion  and  cheap  trip  agencies.  These  have  diverted 
from  the  regular  booking  offices  a  very  large  amount  of 
the  passenger  business — larger  in  some  cases  than  the 
Directors  or  the  General  Managers  would  like  to  admit. 

Here  we  find  another  notable  contrast  between  British 
and  American  methods.  The  British  railway  manager 
holds  on  firmly  to  every  shred  of  his  goods  traffic.  He 
will  not,  if  he  can  avoid  it,  share  a  pennyworth  of  it  with 
outside  carriers,  however  great  a  relief  such  an  arrange- 
ment might  be  to  congested  goods  sheds  and  blocked 
sidings.  But  almost  any  outsider  may  hire  a  passenger 
train  and  use  it  to  spoil  the  regular  business  of  the  line. 
He  may  sell  passenger  tickets  at  a  third  or  a  fourth  of  the 
proper  fare,  and  run  twenty  or  more  carriages  crammed 
full  where  the  company  itself  cannot  half  fill  one-half  of 
the  number.  The  company,  in  short,  farms  out  that 
part  of  its  business  which  would  be  most  easily  kept  for 
itself,  and  clings  desperately  to  the  part  which  might 
be  advantageously  farmed  out. 

The  American  railways  do  exactly  the  reverse.  They 
keep  their  passenger  business  as  much  as  possible  in 
their  own  hands,  but  they  willingly  sublet  sections  of 
their  goods  traffic  to  intermediaries.  Passenger  agents 
hold  a  prominent  place  in  their  official  hierarchy.  In  this 
respect  the  Canadian  railways  are  naturally  more 
American  than  English.  On  the  Canadian  Pacific  the 
Passenger  Traffic  Manager  ranks  equally  with  the  Freight 
Traffic  Manager.  Not  only  at  the  head  office  but  at  all 
the  division  centres  both  services  have  their  special  staffs. 
The  subdivision  of  authority  is  carried  much  farther 
there  than  it  is  with  us. 

In  the  annual  reports  of  the  Canadian  Pacific  the 
general  officers  number  between  thirty  and  forty — about 
twice  as  many  as  there  would   be  in  a  corresponding 


THE   EXECUTIVE   OFFICERS  237 

English  list.  First  comes  the  President  of  the  Company, 
who  acts  also  as  Chairman  of  the  Directors.  He  is  sup- 
ported by  four  Vice-Presidents,  the  first  of  whom  is  also 
the  General  Manager,  and  the  others  are  heads  of  depart- 
ments. Their  relation  to  each  other  is  something  like 
that  of  the  Lords  of  the  Admiralty.  They  have  all 
distinct  spheres  subject  to  the  supervision  of  the  President. 
Each  of  them  has  assistants,  who  also  have  their  special 
duties.  Altogether  there  are  eight  assistants,  the 
President  having  two,  the  Vice-Presidents  one  each,  and 
two  being  unattached.  They  are  styled  '*  General 
Executive  Assistants." 

On  a  railway  which  is  building  or  rebuilding  hundreds 
of  miles  annually  the  engineering  branch  of  the  executive 
must  necessarily  be  very  strong.  It  is  under  a  Chief 
Engineer  stationed  at  Winnipeg,  and  an  Assistant  Chief 
Engineer  at  Montreal.  The  former  has  charge  of  the 
western  lines,  where  the  heaviest  part  of  the  new  con- 
struction is  going  on.  The  latter  has  supervision  of  the 
eastern  lines,  and  both  have  large  staffs  of  assistants. 

For  the  working  of  such  a  varied  traffic  a  number  of 
departmental  managers  are  required.  In  addition  to  the 
ordinary  freight  and  passenger  managers  there  are  a 
manager  of  steam  lines,  a  manager  of  telegraphs,  and 
a  European  manager — five  in  all.  The  President,  Vice- 
Presidents  and  Managers  form  the  general  staff  of  the 
road,  and  next  in  order  to  them  come  the  divisional 
officers.  There  are  nine  divisions,  each  of  them  under 
a  General  Superintendent  with  a  staff  of  his  own — 
assistant  superintendents,  engineers  and  inspectors.  The 
divisions  extend  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  and  may 
be  of  any  length,  from  four  or  five  hundred  miles  up  to 
a  thousand.  Counting  from  east  to  west,  they  are 
distinguished  as  the  Eastern  Lines  Division,  the  Atlantic, 
the  Eastern,  the  Ontario,  the  Lake  Superior,  the  Manitoba, 
the  Saskatchewan,  the  Alberta  and  the  British  Columbia. 
Division  Superintendents  correspond  pretty  closely  to 
the  District  Superintendents  on  the  London  and  North- 
western. ^         ,  P  V  U 

These  are  the  operating  staff,  and  apart  from  them  there 


238  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

are  three  others — secretarial,  financial  and  legal.  The 
Secretary  is  also  assistant  to  the  President,  and  he  has 
a  deputy  in  London,  where  a  good  deal  of  secretarial 
work  is  done.  The  registration  of  transfers  requires  no 
less  than  three  offices — one  in  London  and  the  others 
in  New  York  and  Montreal.  The  Treasurer  has  appar- 
ently little  to  do  with  the  accounting,  for  which  an 
Assistant  Comptroller  is  responsible.  Last  of  all  the 
legal  staff  consists  of  a  General  Counsel  who  is  also  a 
Director,  and  a  General  Solicitor.  Thirty-four  distinct 
and  separate  experts  are  combined  on  this  powerful 
executive.  Very  few  British  railways  could  carry  such 
a  combination  without  feeling  top-heavy. 

As  the  most  typical  and  highly  developed  of  British 
railway  executives  we  may  take  that  of  the  London  and 
North- Western.  The  first  glance  at  it  shows  so  little 
similarity  with  that  of  an  American  or  Canadian  road 
as  almost  to  preclude  comparison.  First  we  have  to 
look  for  a  General  Staff  corresponding  with  the  American 
President,  Vice-Presidents,  Assistant  Vice-Presidents  and 
Managers.  All  that  can  be  found  is  a  General  Manager, 
a  Superintendent  of  the  Line,  a  Chief  Goods  Manager, 
and  a  Mineral  Traffic  Manager.  There  are  no  Vice- 
Presidents  in  charge  of  special  departments — finance, 
stores,  etc.  Presumably  their  place  is  occupied  by  the 
Committees  of  Directors,  who  do  a  large  amoimt  of 
departmental  supervision.  These  may  not  be  so  expert 
as  their  American  counterparts,  and  they  may  not  have 
such  a  firm  hold  on  all  the  administrative  details,  but  on 
the  other  hand  they  are  in  much  closer  touch  with  the 
shareholders. 

In  American  railroading  shareholders  count  for  very 
little;  often  they  are  entirely  ignored,  and  the  utmost 
civility  ever  paid  to  them  is  to  solicit  their  proxies  for 
the  annual  meetings.  British  shareholders  do  see  their 
Directors  and  Managers  now  and  then,  and  it  is  their  own 
fault  if  they  get  very  little  information  out  of  them.  What 
they  have  to  learn  is  how  to  ask  for  it  and  to  insist  on 
getting  it.  In  America  the  cleverest  of  them — and  as 
a   rule   railway   shareholders   are   not   superabundantly 


THE   EXECUTIVE   OFFICERS  239 

clever— could  not  get  a  syllable  more  than  it  suits  the 
Directors  to  tell  them. 

If  the  General  Staff  of  the  London  and  North-Westem 
be  very  small  and  select,  the  operative  staff  is  large.  In 
fact  it  is  not  merely  large,  but  it  is  promiscuous.  It 
comprises  an  Assistant  Goods  Manager,  two  Assistant 
Superintendents  of  the  Line,  two  Outdoor  Goods  Managers, 
eight  District  Goods  Managers,  a  District  Traffic  Manager 
(at  Dublin),  and  a  host  of  Superintendents.  How  the 
latter  are  graded  is  not  clear.  The  only  clue  to  it  is  that 
the  large  stations  have  Passenger  Superintendents  as 
well  as  Goods  Managers,  while  the  smaller  ones  have 
Traffic  Superintendents  who  take  charge  of  both  goods  and 
passengers.  The  American  plan  of  Division  Super- 
intendents looks  simpler  at  first  glance,  but  it  must  be 
remembered  that  on  the  London  and  North- Western 
there  is  a  greater  density  as  well  as  greater  variety  of 
traffic  to  handle. 

We  have  next  to  compare  what  may  be  distinguished 
as  the  accessory  staffs.  On  the  engineering  side  there  are 
a  Chief  Engineer,  Assistant  Engineer,  Mechanical  Engineer 
and  Electrical  Engineer,  who  is  also  Signal  Superintendent. 
Under  them  are  nine  or  ten  Divisional  Engineers  stationed 
at  central  points  throughout  the  system.  Along  with 
them  may  be  classed  the  Marine  Superintendent  at 
Holyhead,  the  Carriage  Superintendent  at  Wolverton 
and  the  Wagon  Superintendent  at  Earlestown.  These 
are  more  important  officers  in  this  country  than  in 
America,  where  most  of  the  rollmg  stock,  locomotives 
included,  are  bought  in  the  open  market. 

The  secretarial  staff  of  the  London  and  North- Western 
is  unique.  There  is  only  one  officially  recognised 
secretary.  He  has  no  assistant,  no  registrar,  no  transfer 
agent.  He  is  supposed  to  see  to  all  these  things  himself, 
just  as  in  the  old  days,  when  the  traffic  between  London 
and  Birmingham  is  said  to  have  averaged  120  passengers 
and  72  tons  of  goods  per  week.  The  financial  staff  is  also 
primitive,  though  not  quite  so  unique  as  the  secretarial. 
There  is  no  Treasurer,  the  gentleman  who  performs  that 
duty  having  still  to  be  content  with  the  humbler  title 


240  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

of  Cashier.  No  doubt  it  was  bestowed  on  him  in  the 
original  Acts  of  Parliament,  and  cannot  be  altered 
without  legislative  sanction.  In  any  case  it  would  be 
a  pity  to  alter  it.  In  these  days  of  flying  hotels  and 
cannon-ball  restaurants,  such  a  wholesome  relic  of  the 
old  world  is  like  a  certain  widely  advertised  cocoa, 
"  soothing  and  comforting." 

The  Cashier's  department,  if  rather  out  of  date,  makes 
up  for  that  defect  by  having  many  ramifications.  Its 
indoor  staff  includes  a  Chief  Accountant  and  a  Chief  of 
the  Audit  Department,  besides  whom  there  are  two  out- 
side auditors  chosen  by  the  shareholders.  Associated 
with  the  financial  service,  if  not  actually  part  of  it,  are 
the  Estate  Agent,  the  Rating  Agent  and  the  Store- 
keeper. But  the  chief  financial  factors  in  the  London 
and  North-Western  are  the  bankers  of  the  company — 
Glyn,  Mills,  Currie  and  Co.  They  are  its  actual  treasurers, 
all  the  principal  receipts  and  payments  being  made 
through  them. 

The  only  other  branch  of  the  London  and  North- 
Western  executive  that  remains  to  be  described  is  the 
legal  department.  It  is  of  the  most  modest  proportions, 
extending  only  to  a  solicitor  and  a  firm  of  parliamentary 
agents.  The  latter  are  apparently  less  appreciated  than 
they  used  to  be  in  their  halcyon  days  at  Westminster, 
when  railway  managers  and  solicitors  spent  nearly  half 
the  year  in  committee  rooms  fighting  over  Bills,  many  of 
which  we  might  all  have  been  better  without.  They 
now  give  precedence  to  the  Hotel  Manager,  who 
ranks  among  the  superior  gods.  The  superintendent  of 
sleeping-cars  has  not  yet  attained  that  high  official  level, 
but  doubtless  his  turn  will  come.  The  railway  manage- 
ment of  the  future  promises  to  be  more  concerned 
about  feeding  passengers  and  washing  them  than  about 
transporting  them  at  the  lowest  possible  cost. 

The  conclusion  which  most  readers  may  draw  from 
these  comparisons  of  British  and  American  railway 
executives  is  that  the  British  system  is  the  simpler  and 
more  economical  of  the  two.  The  salary  bill  of  the 
President,  Vice-Presidents,  Managers  and  Superintendents 


THE  EXECUTIVE  OFFICERS  241 

of  an  American  road  would  probably  pay  for  the  whole 
staff  at  Euston,  porters  and  shunters  included.  Per 
contra,  it  must  be  admitted  that  these  high  salaried 
magnates  of  the  railway  world  have  to  work  hard  for 
their  £5,000  or  £10,000  a  year.  They  have  to  prove  that 
they  are  worth  it  before  they  get  it,  and  they  have  to 
keep  on  earning  it,  or  it  may  slip  through  their  fingers. 
Our  railway  magnates,  if  their  monthly  cheques  be 
comparatively  small,  have  a  much  firmer  hold  on  them. 

Popular  notions  of  the  personnel  of  our  railways  are 
necessarily  very  vague.  Railway  officials  even  of  the 
highest  grades  are  very  modest  and  retiring — too  modest, 
in  fact,  both  in  their  own  interest  and  that  of  the  pubUc. 
They  are  even  more  reticent  and  self-contained  than 
our  leading  bankers,  who  hold  the  record  for  latent 
wisdom.  Bankers  and  railway  managers  alike  have  too 
little  to  say  for  themselves,  especially  in  national 
emergencies,  when  every  man  in  authority  owes  it  to  the 
nation  to  give  it  frankly  and  fully  the  best  counsel  at 
his  command.  Just  now,  when  banking  problems  and 
railway  problems  are  crowding  in  on  us  from  all  quarters, 
why  should  every  voice  be  heard  except  that  of  the 
experts  ? 

American  railway  experts  are  not  afflicted  with  in- 
curable reserve.  They  not  only  discuss  professional 
questions  among  themselves,  but  they  are  always  ready 
to  come  out  in  the  open  and  cross  swords  with  their 
critics.  They  write  copiously  in  the  press;  they  read 
papers  at  public  meetings;  they  hold  conferences  with 
Chambers  of  Commerce,  Boards  of  Trade  and  Farmers* 
Clubs.  Not  only  so,  but  their  office  doors  are  always 
open  to  any  trader  who  has  a  reasonable  complaint  or 
a  rational  inquiry  to  make.  The  personal  knowledge 
which  they  acquire  in  this  way  of  their  customers,  and 
the  sources  of  their  traffic,  is  amazing.  Many  of  them 
are  agricultural  and  industrial  as  well  as  railway  experts. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

THE   WORKING   STAFF 

If  the  various  classes  of  society  do  not  work  together 
as  harmoniously  as  they  used  to  do,  it  may,  on  the  other 
hand,  be  claimed  for  them  that  they  take  more  practical 
interest  in  each  other,  and  show  greater  anxiety  to  under- 
stand each  other's  conditions  and  sentiments.  The 
economic  condition  of  the  wage-earners  has  become  a 
subject  of  systematic  and  sympathetic  study.  It  may 
not  always  be  pursued  in  a  friendly  spirit,  but  both  sides 
of  the  case  are  being  more  or  less  clearly  put  forward. 
Labour  and  capital  are  learning  even  from  their  con- 
flicts to  know  and  imderstand  each  other  better  than  they 
have  ever  done  before.  It  dawns  on  them  that  their 
struggle  for  mastery  demands  on  both  sides  the  most 
exact  knowledge  of  each  other's  strength  and  resources. 
It  also  dawns  on  the  public,  though  more  dimly,  that 
these  questions  underlie  the  foundations  of  national 
life  and  well-being. 

The  State  has  of  late  years  paid  an  increasing  amount 
of  attention  to  what  may  be  termed  the  economic  educa- 
tion of  the  people.  More  than  one  public  agency  is  now 
regularly  employed  in  collecting  statistics  of  wages, 
prices  of  commodities,  conditions  of  labour,  cost  of  living 
and  other  vital  factors  in  the  human  problem.  The 
labour  troubles  of  late  years  have  given  a  strong  impetus 
to  this  branch  of  inquiry,  and  already  some  substantial 
results  have  been  produced.  Among  them  are  the  reports 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  on  the  earnings  and  hours  of  labour 
of  work-people  of  the  United  Kingdom.  One  of  these  is 
devoted  to  the  railway  service,  and  it  will  be  exceedingly 
useful  to  us  in  the  present  chapter. 

242 


THE  WORKING  STAFF  243 

The  above  inquiry  was  begun  at  a  very  significant 
time — October  1907 — when  it  may  be  remembered  that 
the  first  threat  of  a  national  railway  strike  was  sprung 
on  the  country.  It  took  everybody  by  surprise,  and  as 
the  fateful  day  approached  it  caused  general  alarm, 
bordering  in  some  cases  on  panic.  The  real  cause  of  the 
panic  was  ignorance.  The  railway  service  as  it  then 
existed  was  a  complete  mystery  to  the  average  citizen. 
He  knew  nothing  about  the  complex  organisation  of 
our  railways,  and  still  less  about  their  personnel.  From 
the  chairman  to  the  yoimgest  lamp-boy,  railway-men 
were  strangers  to  him.  Naturally,  therefore,  when  a 
national  strike  was  threatened,  he  had  no  idea  what  it 
really  meant.  He  could  not  imagine  how  it  would  be 
carried  out,  or  what  its  ultimate  effects  might  be.  How 
many  men  were  in  the  railway  service,  how  they  were  paid, 
how  they  lived,  and  what  they  might  do  in  the  case  of  a 
general  revolt  were  all  mysteries  to  him.  He  had  never 
thought  about  them  from  this  particular  point  of  view. 

Happily  the  national  strike  was  averted,  but  the 
Board  of  Trade  did  not  follow  the  example  of  public 
departments  which  go  to  sleep  again  as  soon  as  a  danger 
is  passed.  It  got  to  work  on  a  census  of  railway  servants, 
their  hours  of  labour  and  their  average  earnings.  This 
was  so  largely  planned  and  so  detailed  in  its  execution 
that  it  took  fully  four  years  to  complete.  Mr.  G.  S. 
Barnes  dated  his  introduction  to  it  "  February  1912," 
and  it  did  not  appear  until  a  month  or  two  after.  It  is 
a  folio  volume  of  258  pages,  containing  millions  of  figures 
as  well  as  a  large  amount  of  letterpress.  The  information 
it  supplies  is  so  full  and  complete  that  no  one  has  any 
excuse  left  for  remaining  ignorant  of  the  actual  condition 
of  railway  labour. 

Of  course  a  good  many  changes  have  taken  place  since 
1907,  when  the  figures  were  collected,  but  these  have  all 
been  in  favour  of  the  railway  workers.  The  conciUation 
schemes  of  1907  and  1911  have  had  the  effect  of  raising 
wages  at  least  10  per  cent,  all  round.  The  main  point, 
however,  for  us  here  is  that  railway  shareholders  and 
railway  servants  are  no  longer  in  the  dark  as  to  their 


244  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

respective  positions.  They  can  no  longer  confuse  each 
other  and  the  public  as  to  the  essential  elements  of  wage 
disputes.  The  street  corner  spouter,  who  used  to  declaim 
about  so  many  hundred  thousand  railway-men  having 
to  bring  up  their  families  on  less  than  a  pound  a  week, 
is  once  for  all  put  out  of  court. 

Mr.  Barnes,  the  editor  of  the  report,  pays  a  high  compli- 
ment to  the  railway  companies  and  to  employers  generally 
for  the  cordial  assistance  they  gave  toward  its  preparation. 
He  says — 

"  The  information  on  which  this  and  previous  reports 
of  the  same  character  are  based  was  supplied  voluntarily 
by  employers  in  response  to  inquiries  made  by  the  Board 
of  Trade.  ...  In  the  present  case,  owing  to  the  special 
character  of  the  railway  service,  it  has  been  possible  to 
obtain  returns  covering  practically  the  whole  number 
of  railway  servants  employed  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
and  for  this  result  the  Board  are  greatly  indebted  to  the 
assistance  of  the  railway  companies  which  have  compiled 
the  detailed  returns  on  which  the  report  is  based.  Returns 
were  prepared  by  all  railway  companies  except  a  few 
very  small  undertakings  employing  so  few  work-people 
as  to  be  negligible.  These  returns  were  combined  by 
the  Railway  Clearing  House  to  show  figures  for  the 
various  districts  and  groups  of  towns  into  which  the 
United  Kingdom  was  divided." 

The  railways  were  divided  into  two  groups,  steam  and 
electric.  Only  the  men  actually  engaged  in  their  opera- 
tion were  included,  engine  and  wagon  builders,  dock  and 
canal  workers,  and  hotel  servants  being  returned  under 
their  proper  trades.  Four  enumerations  were  made  in 
the  year  1907,  namely,  in  the  last  pay  weeks  of  January, 
April,  July  and  October.  In  the  final  abstracts  prepared 
by  the  Railway  Clearing  House  these  are  given,  first 
separately  and  then  as  a  general  average  for  the  year. 
The  tabular  abstract  for  the  steam  railways  shows  a 
grand  total  of  412,399  employees  drawing  pay  to  the 
aggregate  amount  of  £26,714,106  a  year.  For  the 
electric  railways  the  corresponding  totals  were  6,859 
employees  and  £508,790  a  year  wages. 


THE  WORKING  STAFF 


245 


The  salaried  staff — ^station-masters,  booking  clerks 
and  higher  ofi&cials — are  of  course  excluded  from  this 
wage  census.  It  is  confined  to  men  on  weekly  pay, 
and  is  far  from  being  a  complete  account  of  railway 
employees.  It  may  be  distinguished  as  the  trade  union 
section  of  them,  the  men  who  spend  a  large  portion  of 
their  leisure  time  in  organising,  agitating,  grievance- 
mongering  and  otherwise  antagonising  their  employers. 
The  salaried  section  of  the  railway  service  probably 
numbers  half  as  many  as  the  wage  section.  This  would 
give  us  a  grand  total  of  about  600,000  railway-men  of  all 
grades,  from  Greneral  Manager  to  van  boy. 

The  steam  railways  employ  about  twenty  different 
classes  of  men  and  boys.  In  1907  their  respective  numbers, 
rates  of  wages  and  average  actual  earnings  were  as  under — 

British  Railways  (Steam).     Numbers  of  Weekly  Wage  Men  (1907). 
Average  Rates  of  Wages  and  Average  Actual  Earnings. 


Average 

Average 
Actual 

Numbers. 

Rates  of 

Wages. 

Earnings. 

s.     d. 

s.    d. 

14,208 

34    0 

36     9 

10,772 

23     7 

26  11 

18,146 

18    8 

19     9 

6,760 

17    8 

17  10 

18,606 

20    9 

21  10 

10,096 

26    4 

26    9 

14,097 

23    9 

26    7 

6,686 

27    9 

29    3 

16,643 

28    2 

31     2 

26,849 

26    4 

27    6 

26,430 

40    3 

46  11 

26,029 

23  10 

27     5 

9,930 

17     8 

20    2 

27,096 

29     7 

31     8 

44,366 

19    6 

21     2 

16,078 

23    7 

24    9 

8,618 

20    0 

21     9 

27,197 

20    0 

21     8 

8,165 

13    3 

14    6 

4,466 

11     9 

12    2 

6,619 

9  11 

10    3 

Advlt  Workmen : 

Foremen 

Gangers  (Permanent  Way)      .      . 

Porters  (Coaching  and  Traffic) — 
Six-day  Workers  .... 
Other  Workers 

Porters  (Goods) 

Checkers  (Goods) 

Shunters 

Passenger  Guards 

Goods  Guards  and  Brakesmen      . 

Signalmen 

Engine-drivers 

Firemen        

Engine-cleaners 

Mechanics 

Platelayers  and  Packers     .      .      . 

Carmen  and  Draymen   .      .      .      . 

Labourers  (Locomotive  and  Car- 
riage Departments)   .... 

Labourers  (Permanent  Way)  .  . 
Lads  and  Boys  : 

Engine-cleaners 

Porters    •     •     •     •     i     *     *     * 
Van  Guards  and  Dray  Lads    .      . 


246 


BRITISH  RAILWAYS 


British  Railways  (Electric).    Numbers  of  Weekly  Wage  Men  and 
Average  Earnings  (1907). 


Numbers. 


Earnings. 


Ad'ilt  Workmen  : 

Foremen 

Gangers 

Motormen 

Conductors  and  Gateraen 

Porters 

Ticket  Ckjllectors  and  Examiners 

Lift  Attendautfj 

Signalmen 

Carriage  Examiners  and  Greasers 

Carriage  Cleaners 

Mechanics 

Platelayers  and  Packers   . 

Labourers 

Other  Men 

Electricity  Oeneratitig  StatiotM  : 

Labourers 

Other  Men 

Total 

Lad.3  and  Boys  : 

Trade  Apprentices       .... 

Porters 

Other  Lads  and  Boys  .... 
Electricity  Generating  Stations  : 

All  Lads  and  Boys      .... 

Total   .  .  .  .  .  .  . 


232 
70 
604 
1,199 
286 
222 
383 
207 
146 
143 
672 
661 
660 
365 

129 

586 


6,354 


64 
146 
364 

23 


$.  d. 

38  6 

35  11 

3S  10 

23  11 

17  10 

22  1 


26 

28 
28 
21 


36  8 

25  7 

26  6 

27  3 

25  6 

35  5 


«.  d. 

to  55  0 

»  37  2 

„  41  9 

,.  24  7 

,.  19  0 

.,  22  11 

"  31  11 

„  30  11 

„  22  7 

»  40  2 

„  28  10 

„  35  10 

»  28  7 

„  28  0 

..  36  6 


30«.  Id. 


f.  d.  s.     d. 

9  8  to  — 

11  6  „  13  4 

12  10  „  14  3 


13  3 


15  0 


686 


13«.  0<2. 


If  the  issue  between  the  railway  companies  and  the 
section  of  their  employees  who  are  paid  weekly  wages 
were  simply  a  question  of  the  market  value  of  their 
labour,  it  would  be  easily  settled.  Li  fact  it  would  have 
settled  itself  long  ago,  or  rather  we  might  say  that  it 
could  never  have  risen  to  the  importance  of  a  national 
question.  The  men  themselves  and  the  more  candid  of 
their  leaders  acknowledge  that  railway  labour  is  better 
paid  than  any  other  class  of  labour  with  which  it  can  be 
fairly  compared.  Taking  into  account  all  its  peculiar 
advantages — its  regularity,  steadiness  and  absence  of 
broken  time — it  is  even  above  the  average.  Add  to 
these  the  many  supplements  given  in  the  shape  of  free 


THE  WORKING  STAFF  247 

uniforms,  annual  holidays,  sick  allowances,  free  passes 
or  reduced  fares  for  themselves  and  families,  in  many 
cases  houses  rent  free  or  at  nominal  rents,  free  gardens 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  stations,  and  other  perquisites, 
and  it  will  be  seen  that  no  class  of  workers  have  less  right 
to  speak  of  themselves  as  sweated  toilers. 

Neither  has  any  other  class  of  wage-earners  less  right 
to  complain  of  the  general  attitude  of  their  employers. 
They  have  been  allowed  to  organise  themselves  into  the 
strongest  and  most  active  union  now  in  existence.  Though 
their  union  is  not  directly  recognised  it  has  the  substance 
of  recognition  without  the  name.  Its  leaders  have 
cleverly  manoeuvred  their  way  into  the  Concihation 
Boards,  and  are  gradually  acquiring  a  dominant  voice 
in  them.  Incognito  they  carry  on  important  negotiations 
with  railway  ofl&cials,  and  even  with  General  Managers  and 
Directors. 

Rather  ungraciously  the  men,  or  at  least  the  socialistic 
section  of  them,  disparage  the  Conciliation  Boards  and 
carp  at  their  decisions.  In  doing  so  they  forget  that 
these  Boards  are  exceptional  concessions  made  to  them 
by  the  Legislature,  and  not  solitary  concessions  either. 
The  workers  in  other  industries — ^some  of  them  hardly 
less  important  than  the  railway  service,  have  had  to 
frame  their  own  conciliation  schemes  and  operate  them 
as  best  they  could.  The  Lancashire  cotton  operatives 
got  no  special  help  from  Parliament  in  creating  an  organ- 
isation to  negotiate  with  their  employers.  Neither  did 
the  engineers  or  the  shipbuilders,  or  the  building  trades 
generally.  Only  the  coal-miners  and  the  railway  servants 
have  got  the  State  to  interfere  on  their  behalf  in  their 
wage  disputes.  They  alone  have  enjoyed  the  special 
favour  of  Ministers  and  members  of  Parliament  in  their 

strike  campaigns.  _.     -,  j    x     xu 

This  political  favour  has  been  extended  to  them 
generously,  an«d  not  always  wisely.  They  have  enjoyed 
it  even  when  they  were  breaking  the  law  and  threatenmg 
unspeakable  harm  to  the  community.  When  they  ran 
up  against  a  restrictive  law,  as  in  the  Osborne  case,  and 
could  not  get  round  it,  a  subservient  Legislature  obhgmgly 


248  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

agreed  to  alter  it  to  suit  them.  Thanks  to  their  own 
representatives  in  the  House  of  Commons  and  the  willing 
support  of  the  Labour  members  generally,  their  parlia- 
mentary influence  became  so  great  that  at  one  time  they 
lost  their  heads  and  thought  that  henceforth  nothing 
would  be  impossible  for  them.  They  not  only  became 
systematic  log-rollers  in  their  own  interest,  but  they 
declared  war  on  their  employers  and  blocked  nearly 
every  Bill  promoted  by  a  railway  company,  regardless 
of  its  real  object  or  its  merits,  or  its  possible  effect  on 
the  public  interest. 

If  a  candid,  impartial  comparison  be  drawn  between 
the  respective  uses  which  the  railway  companies  and 
their  employees  have  in  recent  years  made  of  their 
political  power,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  extravagant 
demands  have  invariably  come  from  the  men,  and  the 
valuable  concessions  from  the  companies.  The  men  do 
not  even  seem  to  realise  the  meaning  of  these  concessions, 
let  alone  being  grateful  for  them.  To  take  the  conciliation 
schemes  as  an  example,  do  the  men  ever  consider  how 
much  stronger  and  safer  a  position  these  put  them  in 
than  the  ordinary  unskilled  labourer  ever  attains  ? 

In  the  airing  of  his  grievances  the  railway-man  has 
so  many  privileges  and  advantages  that  any  other  labourer 
may  well  envy  him.  He  can  quarrel  with  his  foreman 
and  carry  the  case  at  once  to  his  superior  ofl&cer.  If  the 
superior  officer  decides  against  him  he  can  get  his  branch 
secretary  to  take  up  the  quarrel  and  carry  it  to  the  local 
superintendent.  If  his  decision  is  unsatisfactory  it  may 
be  brought  before  the  Concihation  Board.  A  little  bit 
of  temper  between  two  men  may  spread  and  spread  until 
it  reaches  the  General  Manager's  office  or  even  the  Board 
room.  If  the  union  leaders  happen  to  be  in  a  fighting 
mood  they  may  seize  on  it  as  a  pretext  for  a  general 
strike. 

Every  day  in  the  year  railway  officials  from  the  highest 
to  the  lowest  are  in  danger  of  inadvertently  treading  on 
somebody's  corns  and  raising  a  row.  One  time  it  may  be 
in  the  porters'  room,  another  time  it  may  be  in  the 
shunting-yard,   or   the   round-house.     But   wherever   it 


THE  WORKING  STAFF  249 

breaks  out  and  whoever  may  start  it,  be  he  engine- 
driver  or  lamp-boy,  the  etiquette  of  the  union  requires 
that  it  be  fought  out  to  the  bitter  end.  Railway  men 
since  they  became  politicians,  diplomatists  and  sea- 
lawyers,  are  chock-full  of  grievances.  They  revel  in 
them  like  Irishmen  at  a  fair.  Their  official  organ,  the 
Railway  Review,  appears  to  live  on  them.  At  all  events 
they  constitute  more  than  half  of  its  reading  matter. 
From  the  weekly  cartoon,  which  is  always  more  or  less 
insulting  to  railway  directors  and  shareholders,  down  to 
the  report  of  the  smallest  branch  meeting,  there  is  nothing 
but  jibes,  sneers  and  abuse  of  the  people  who  have  been 
foolish  enough  to  provide  the  money  to  build  the  railways 
and  keep  them  going. 

Whether  we  look  at  this  line  of  conduct  from  a  labour 
point  of  view,  or  as  a  matter  of  business,  its  foolishness 
will  appear  to  be  on  a  par  with  its  bad  taste.  Needless 
to  say  it  is  utterly  subversive  of  discipline,  and  no  one 
perhaps  would  admit  that  more  readily  than  the  men 
themselves.  It  is  a  minimum  of  discipline  they  want 
as  well  as  a  maximum  of  pay.  But  neither  of  these  is 
compatible  with  good  railroading  or  with  the  best 
interests  of  the  men  themselves.  If  we  look  at  it  as  a 
labour  question,  it  cannot  be  for  their  benefit,  any  more 
than  it  can  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  railway,  that  they 
should  deliberately  and  systematically  lessen  the  value 
of  their  services  by  disloyalty,  insubordination  and  con- 
tinual grumbling.  If,  again,  we  look  at  it  as  a  matter 
of  business,  it  cannot  be  either  to  their  credit  or  their 
advantage  to  carry  out  their  contracts  and  engagements 
in  a  grudging,  discontented  spirit ;  still  less  to  repudiate 
them  whenever  they  see  a  chance  to  drive  a  harder 
bargain  with  their  employers  and  the  public. 

Even  in  the  Socialist  millennium  for  which  so  many 
hot-headed  trade  unionists  are  pining  there  will  have  to 
be  some  principle  of  good  faith  and  common  honesty. 
Promises  will  have  to  be  kept  and  engagements  fulfilled 
if  the  community  is  going  to  hold  together.  But  if  the 
new  labour  policy  is  to  be  pushed  to  its  logical  conclusion, 
the  only  moral  law  will  be  the  caprice  of  the  moment  or 


260  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

the  war-cry  of  the  latest  strike  leader.  Unity  House 
itself  is  no  longer  safe  from  anti -capitalist  raids.  That 
the  headquarters  of  the  railway  men's  imion  should  be 
picketed  like  an  ordinary  shop  or  factory  is  surely  a 
reductio  ad  absurdum  of  the  labour  doctrine  that  the 
worker  must  rule  and  the  employer  must  obey. 

It  is  a  curious  coincidence  that  the  coal-miners,  the 
other  champion  strikers  who  have  enjoyed  the  benefit  of 
parliamentary  help  and  encouragement,  have  also  had 
a  domestic  quarrel  in  which  trade  imion  principles  were 
turned  upside  down.  The  Miners'  Federation  of  South 
Wales  at  a  recent  conference  decided  to  punish  their 
leaders  for  the  failure  of  the  national  coal  strike  by  a 
drastic  reduction  of  their  salaries.  This  precipitated 
another  sort  of  a  strike — a  serio-comic  one.  The  leaders 
all  marched  out  of  the  hall  together,  declaring  that  they 
would  rather  return  to  the  pit  than  take  less  than  collier's 
pay  with  unlimited  abuse  and  bullying  thrown  in. 
Mr.  Stanton,  the  fiercest  firebrand  of  them  aU,  added  his 
private  opinion  that  the  office  of  a  miners'  agent  was  the 
best  possible  qualification  for  a  hot  hereafter. 

If  miners  and  railway  men  find  it  rather  difficult  to 
adjust  the  relations  of  labour  and  capital  among  them- 
selves, they  might  learn  to  be  a  little  more  considerate 
toward  ordinary  employers.  They  might  have  the 
grace  to  acknowledge  that  employers  are  doing  their 
best  for  them  and  making  considerable  sacrifices  for  their 
benefit.  As  yet  we  have  not  reached  the  high  level  of 
civilisation  where  the  worker  is  to  be  his  own  master 
and  to  monopolise  the  entire  product  of  his  labour. 
The  railways  are  still  on  a  capitalistic  basis,  and  a  large 
majority  of  the  people  still  prefer  that  to  a  socialistic 
basis.  While  this  preference  continues,  absurd  as  it  may 
seem  to  many  trade  unionists,  railway  labour  will  have 
to  remain  on  a  wage  basis. 

The  practical  question,  therefore,  is  what  sort  of  return 
the  railway  man  should  make  for  his  wages.  Granting, 
as  the  above  figures  compel  us  to  do,  that  railway  labour 
is  well  paid  and  well  treated  in  comparison  with  most 
other  kinds,   what  sort  of  service  are  the   employers 


THE  WORKING  STAFF  251 

entitled  to  expect  from  the  employed  ?  The  very  least 
they  might  look  for  is  personal  civility  to  begin  with, 
and  to  that  there  might  without  any  sacrifice  of  manhood 
or  personal  independence  be  added  some  slight  respect 
for  authority  and  a  little  regard  for  discipline.  Recent 
events,  however,  justify  a  fear  that  both  authority  and 
discipline  are  being  rapidly  undermined.  To  make 
matters  worse  the  men  had  in  both  cases  considerable 
provocation. 

In  the  case  of  Driver  Knox  the  North-Eastern  railway 
men  no  doubt  honestly  believed  that  he  had  been  wrongly 
sentenced  by  the  police  magistrates.  What  they  failed 
to  see  was  that  the  North-Eastern  directors  were  not 
only  justified  in  acting  on  the  magistrates'  decision,  but 
bound  to  do  it  in  the  interest  of  public  safety.  The  men 
were  quick  enough  to  adopt  that  plea  themselves  in 
Richardson's  case  when  it  told  in  their  favour  and  against 
the  Midland  Company.  But  they  would  not  listen  to  it 
in  the  Knox  case  when  it  told  against  them  and  in  favour 
of  the  North-Eastern  Board.  Then  they  started  at  once 
to  take  the  law  into  their  own  hands.  They  assumed 
a  right  which  would  not  be  allowed  for  a  moment  to  any 
employer  or  body  of  employers — ^namely,  the  right  to 
make  war  on  society  for  their  individual  ends. 

Tliis  readiness  to  take  offence  and  to  resort  on  the 
slightest  provocation  to  the  most  violent  measures  is 
a  characteristic  wealmess  of  all  workers  who  feel  that  they 
have  a  strong  union  behind  them.  It  is  eloquently 
exemplified  in  the  following  account  of  a  meeting  of 
North-Eastern  men  which  took  place  at  Gateshead  during 
the  revolt  on  behalf  of  Knox — 

*'  Railway-men  in  Gateshead  held  a  meeting  last  night 
to  consider  the  case  of  an  engine-driver  who  had  been 
reduced  in  status  consequent  on  being  fined  at  the  police- 
court  for  drunkenness.  It  was  reported  that  a  deputation 
to  Mr.  Raven,  chief  mechanical  engineer  of  the  North- 
Eastern  Railway,  had  failed  to  get  the  decision  reversed. 
A  resolution  for  an  immediate  strike  was  only  defeated 
by  a  small  majority,  and  it  was  decided  to  communicate 
by  telegraph  with  Mr.  Raven,  Mr.  Butterworth,  general 


252  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

manager,  and  Mr.  Williams,  general  secretary  of  the 
A.S.R.S.,  with  a  view  to  arranging  an  interview  to-day 
and  to  call  a  mass  meeting  to  hear  the  result  to-morrow." 

If  any  of  these  Gateshead  men  should  ever  migrate 
to  that  land  of  liberty,  the  United  States,  they  will  find  on 
the  railroads  there  the  most  drastic  laws  in  operation 
against  drinking.  Whether  on  or  off  duty  makes  no 
difference  either  in  the  offence  or  the  penalty.  For  a 
railway  man  to  be  seen  entering  a  beer  saloon  is  a  breach 
of  discipline.  For  the  first  offence  he  is  warned,  for  the 
second  he  is  reprimanded,  and  for  the  third  he  is  dis- 
charged. This  rule  applies  with  special  severity  to 
engine-drivers.  On  the  North-Eastern  Railway  quite 
a  different  code  of  ethics  prevails.  An  engine-driver 
who  gets  into  trouble  in  a  police-court  becomes  a  martyr 
to  his  fellow-unionists.  When,  instead  of  being  sum- 
marily discharged,  as  he  would  be  on  an  American  road, 
he  is  only  reduced  to  a  lower  grade,  a  general  strike  on 
his  behalf  is  immediately  threatened.  And  such  things 
happen  most  frequently  on  the  railway  which  has  gone 
farther  than  any  other  in  the  attempt  to  rule  its  men 
by  kindness  and  conciliation  ! 

The  trouble  on  the  Midland  was  much  more  serious 
than  that  on  the  North-Eastern,  as  here  there  was  reason- 
able ground  for  challenging  the  order  given  to  Richardson. 
It  not  only  required  him  to  disobey  a  printed  rule,  but 
the  officials  who  gave  it  declined  to  put  it  in  writing. 
On  both  these  points  public  opinion  supported  Richardson 
against  the  Midland  officials  and  the  directors — a  signal 
proof  of  its  impartiality  and  sense  of  justice.  Seeing  this 
the  Midland  Board  promptly  receded  from  a  false  position 
— an  example  which  we  may  hope  will  not  be  lost  upon 
the  men.  One  cannot  forget  how  differently  they  acted 
on  a  previous  occasion  when  the  Board  of  Trade  referee 
dismissed  a  number  of  their  complaints  against  the 
company. 

If  the  imion  leaders  can  secure  even  a  small  part  of 
what  they  are  aiming  at,  railway  labour  will  become 
co-optive.  The  railway  companies  will  be  reduced 
to  something  like  the  plight  of  European  employers  in 


THE  WORKING  STAFF  253 

India  where  when  a  vacancy  happens  on  the  native  staff 
of  an  office,  if  the  employer  fills  it  with  a  man  of  his 
own  selection  there  is  soon  a  fresh  vacancy.  If  he 
makes  another  selection,  this  victim  will  also  get  short 
shrift.  Then  perhaps  the  employer  will  discover  that 
his  native  clerks  are  in  league  to  get  the  place  for  a  friend 
of  their  own,  and  that  there  will  be  no  peace  for  him  mitil 
he  accepts  their  choice. 

The  co-optive  system  has  already  advanced  so  far  on 
our  railways  that  all  promotions  are  subject  to  revision 
at  the  branch  meetings  of  the  union.  If  a  man  is  pro- 
moted out  of  his  turn  it  will  be  treated  as  a  case  of 
victimisation,  and  an  irate  deputation  will  wait  forthwith 
on  the  responsible  official.  Seniority  is  the  only  principle 
of  selection  recognised  in  the  ranks,  and  the  favourite 
motto  is  "  every  man  to  his  own  job."  In  the  new 
dispensation  there  seems  to  be  little  room  for  officials 
or  bosses  of  any  kind.  Government  from  below  is  fast 
superseding  government  from  above. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

FOUR  NATIONAL   RAILWAY   SYSTEMS 

If  all  the  blue-books  and  other  dull  books  which  have 
been  written  about  British  railways  were  piled  on  top  of 
each  other  they  could  easily  rival  the  Nelson  column, 
and  there  would  be  enough  over  for  a  respectable  bonfire. 
If  books  could  have  done  it  our  railway  problems  should 
by  this  time  have  been  nearly  all  solved  and  set  at  rest. 
But  instead  of  that  we  appear  to  be  only  at  the  beginning 
of  them.  They  increase  and  multiply  faster  than  we 
can  deal  with  them.  Like  all  our  other  social  and  econo- 
mic problems,  they  seem  to  be  infinitely  variable  and 
many-sided.  Every  succeeding  generation  has  a  fresh 
set  of  them  to  struggle  with,  and  before  one  set  of  them 
can  be  disposed  of  new  and  more  difficult  ones  are  claiming 
our  attention. 

The  science  of  transportation  is  becoming  as  complex 
as  the  older  and  more  universal  science  of  production. 
"  Complex  "  is,  in  fact,  a  mild  term  to  apply  to  it.  In 
most  countries  it  might  more  correctly  be  called  chaotic. 
Unfortunately  for  us  British  railways,  though  the  oldest 
of  all,  are  not  the  best  organised  and  operated.  They  still 
bear  marks  of  the  primitive  coaching  and  canal  boat 
regime  out  of  which  they  grew.  Their  fares  are  based 
on  those  of  the  old  coaching  days.  Their  regulations 
are  in  many  respects  better  suited  to  road  than  to  railway 
traffic.  The  most  familiar  part  of  their  nomenclature 
has  been  inherited  from  the  mail  coaches  of  a  century 
ago. 

Their  station  agents  are  still  officially  designated 
*'  collectors."  They  give  out  their  tickets  in  "  booking 
offices,"  though  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  do  any  booking. 

254 


FOUR  NATIONAL  RAILWAY  SYSTEMS    256 

Most  of  them  have  still  three  classes  of  tickets,  though 
there  is  little  or  no  difference  in  their  practical  value 
to  travellers.  All  three  classes  of  passengers  ride  as  a 
rule  in  the  same  train,  and  have  similar  advantages  as 
regards  speed  and  comfort.  The  engine-man  is  still 
a  "  driver,"  and  the  conductor  is  still  a  *'  guard."  The 
passenger  fares  are  still  distinguished  as  "  coaching 
receipts,"  and  goods  have  still  to  be  accompanied  by 
"  way-bills."  The  chief  official  in  charge  of  the  traffic 
is  still  a  "  superintendent,"  but  he  is  now  "  Superintendent 
of  the  Line  "  and  not  of  the  road  as  formerly.  His  new 
title  is,  however,  a  misnomer,  for  he  has  very  little  to  do 
with  the  road  itself. 

But  the  hereditary  influence  of  the  mail-coach  regime 
on  our  British  railways  goes  much  deeper  than  matters 
of  detail  and  nomenclature.  It  affects  the  whole  spirit 
and  policy  of  our  railway  administration.  It  imposed 
limitations  on  the  enterprise  of  our  railway  pioneers; 
it  led  our  traffic  managers  astray  on  vital  points  of 
railway  finance;  it  has  biased  and  confused  their  ideas 
of  rates  and  charges.  But  for  the  old  mail-coach  regime 
we  might  never  have  heard  of  such  musty  axioms  as 
"  charging  what  the  traffic  will  bear."  But  for  it  we 
might  have  had  rational  and  effective  competition  among 
the  railways  instead  of  the  bastard  and  wasteful  sort 
which  goes  by  the  name  of  "  giving  facilities  to  the 
public."  In  practice  *'  giving  facilities  to  the  public  " 
invariably  means  putting  on  more  passenger  trains  than 
there  is  any  need  for,  and  running  them  at  high  speeds 
in  order  to  keep  them  out  of  each  other's  way. 

It  would  be  a  difficult  as  well  as  an  imgracious  task 
to  apportion  the  blame  of  these  mistakes  among  the 
various  responsible  parties.  The  chief  share  of  it  must, 
of  course,  fall  on  the  original  designers  of  our  railway 
system.  Each  succeeding  generation  of  railway  adminis- 
trators will  have  to  be  let  off  more  easily.  The  worst 
charge  that  can  be  laid  against  them  is  that  they  were 
slow  to  discover  the  initial  errors  of  their  predecessors 
and  to  set  about  correcting  them.  The  first  and  greatest 
sinners  were  the  legislators  of  the  period  in  which  railways 


256  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

originated.  They  were  hopelessly  obsessed  with  the 
narrow  ideas  and  prejudices  of  the  coaching  age.  How- 
ever far-seeing  the  first  generation  of  railway  engineers 
and  financiers  might  have  been,  they  would  have  fought 
in  vain  against  the  conservatism  of  the  parliamentary 
committees  which  sat  on  their  Bills  and  generally  squashed 
the  best  parts  of  them. 

It  was  fated  that  we  should  have  a  railway  system 
modelled  on  the  coaching  system  which  it  superseded, 
and  that  is  what  we  have  got.  This  fundamental  idea 
has  to  be  clearly  kept  in  mind  in  judging  the  British 
railways  of  to-day,  and  still  more  in  comparing  them 
with  the  railways  of  other  countries.  The  latter  had 
for  the  most  part  quite  different  origins  and  develop- 
ments. The  very  imperfection  of  their  road  and  canal 
transport  gave  them  a  freer  hand  than  the  British  railway 
pioneer  enjoyed.  This  difference  is  most  striking  in  the 
new  countries  of  the  world,  and  above  all  in  America. 
The  American  railway  started  on  the  prairie  with  free 
land,  free  charters  and  a  free  hand  generally.  It  was 
very  little  hampered  either  by  pre-existing  roads  or 
canals.  Its  task  was  entirely  different  from  that  of  the 
British  railway,  and  the  problems  it  had  to  solve  were 
of  a  quite  opposite  kind. 

The  typical  pioneer  railway  of  the  Old  World  had  to 
take  over  an  established  and  well-developed  traffic,  while 
the  tj^ical  pioneer  railway  of  the  New  World  had  to 
go  out  in  the  wilderness  and  create  traffic  for  itself.  The 
Old  World  railway  was  shut  up  within  narrow  limits, 
both  geographical  and  intellectual.  It  had  comparatively 
short  distances  to  cover,  and  comparatively  small  loads 
to  carry.  It  had  a  multitude  of  small  towns  to  serve, 
and  each  of  them  demanded  costly  station  accom- 
modation. Worse  than  all  these  natural  disadvan- 
tages was  the  costly  fight  it  had  to  maintain  against 
parliamentary  cormorants — ^lawyers,  land-owners  and 
company  promoters. 

What  emerged  from  the  political  conflict  in  which  the 
British  railway  was  born  was  an  insular  system  of  iron 
roads  differing  in  very  few  respects  from  the  macadamised 


FOUR  NATIONAL  RAILWAY  SYSTEMS    257 

roads  of  the  preceding  generation.  The  ideas  and 
methods  of  the  old  roads  were  as  far  as  possible  applied 
to  the  new  ones,  with  the  effect  of  hampering  their  growth 
and  restricting  their  usefulness.  Not  till  after  years  of 
"  mail  coaching  "  did  the  British  railway  engineer  become 
fully  alive  to  the  fact  that  a  mail  coach  and  a  railway  train 
are  two  absolutely  different  things.  Fortune  saved  the 
American  railway  pioneer  from  that  costly  error.  He  was 
free  from  "  mail-coaching  "  theories  and  traditions.  He 
had  no  social  distinctions  and  prejudices  to  study.  The 
locomotive  was  to  him  simply  a  new  power  unfettered 
and  unrestricted.  All  he  had  to  do  was  to  take  hold  of 
it  and  in  his  own  language  to  "  run  it  for  all  it  was  worth." 

The  problem  of  the  American  railway  has  throughout 
its  whole  history  reflected  this  superior  freedom  and 
larger  scope.  It  has  never  been  smaU  and  petty  like 
many  of  our  own  railway  controversies.  Its  main  ques- 
tion has  always  been  how  to  do  the  largest  amount  of 
transportation  at  the  smallest  possible  cost.  Judged  by^ 
this  practical  test  the  American  railway  is  the  most 
successful  transport  agency  of  the  present  day.  In  its 
early  life  it  was  a  great  deal  more  than  that.  It  was  the 
most  powerful  colonising  agency  ever  known.  It  opened 
up  minions  of  acres  of  otherwise  inaccessible  land.  It 
carried  in  miUions  of  settlers  and  cultivators.  It  furnished 
them  with  the  means  of  cultivation  and  production.  It 
hauled  out  their  produce  in  enormous  train-loads  at 
fabulously  cheap  rates,  without  which  they  could  not 
have  reached  a  market  or  made  a  cent  of  profit  on  their 
year's  work. 

The  British  and  the  American  railways  represent  the 
two  antipodes  of  modern  transportation.  Their  re- 
spective symbols  are  the  short  haul  and  the  long  one, 
the  small  wagon  and  the  monster  car,  the  light  load  and 
the  heavy  one,  the  high  and  the  low  mileage  rates. 
Between  these  two  extremes  the  railways  of  all  other 
countries  range  themselves.  Some  are  more  British 
and  some  are  more  American  than  the  others.  But  the 
two  opposite  types  are  always  distinguishable.  The 
American    railway    does    the    wholesale    transportation 


268  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

trade  and  leaves  the  retail  business  to  the  British  short 
lines.  In  comparing  these  two  systems  a  master  key 
may  be  found  to  the  principal  transportation  problems 
of  the  day. 

Throughout  the  world  there  are  now  fuUy  half  a  million 
miles  of  railway  in  operation.^  Over  three  hundred 
thousand  (306,767)  miles  are  embraced  in  four  large 
networks — the  British,  French,  Prussian  and  American. 
These  are  not  only  the  most  extensive  railway  systems, 
but  they  are  the  best  organised  and  most  highly  developed. 
They  are  supposed  to  produce  the  best  economic  and 
financial  results.  By  all  other  countries  they  are  re- 
garded as  models  of  scientific  transportation.  They  are 
not,  however,  uniform  models.  On  the  contrary,  there 
is  little  similarity  between  them  either  in  their  physical 
character,  their  methods  or  their  results.  In  the  most 
important  respects  they  exhibit  striking  differences  which 
are  difficult  indeed  to  explain. 

The  mileage  of  these  four  great  railway  systems  about 
to  be  compared  was  as  follows  in  1909 — 

Miles  of  Line. 

United  Kingdom 23,280 

Prussia  (including  Hesse) 23,154 

France 24,931 

United  States 235,402 

Total 306,767 

The  above  comparison  relates,  of  course,  to  mileage 
of  line,  which  is  only  a  rough-and-ready  test.  It  places 
on  the  same  level  single-track  railways  across  the  prairie, 
which  can  be  built  now-a-days  for  £2,000  or  £3,000  per 
mile,  and  four  or  six  track  lines  in  large  cities,  which  may 

1  Miles  of  line  in  Europe 177,365 

In  the  United  States 234,717 

In  other  countries 97,408 

609,490 

The  aggregate  capitalisation  has  been  estimated  at  10,717  millions 
sterling,  of  which  5,659  millions  is  in  Europe  and  5,059  millions  in 
other  countries. 


FOUR  NATIONAL  RAILWAY  SYSTEMS    259 

have  cost  £300,000  or  £400,000  per  mile.  No  standardisa- 
tion of  cost  is  possible,  but  we  can  make  some  approaches 
to  it.  We  may,  for  example,  get  at  the  track  mileage 
of  the  respective  networks,  and  this  item  alone  will  be 
found  to  make  a  considerable  change  in  the  comparison. 
It  greatly  improves  the  British  position  and  lowers  the 
American  one.  The  following  are  the  totals  of  track 
mileage  as  distinguished  from  length  of  line — 

Miles  of  Single  Track. 

United  Kingdom 39,622 

Prussia  (including  Hesse) 33,133 

France 35,650 

United  States 259,975 

368,380 

Thus  nearly  the  whole  of  the  British  mileage  is  double 
track,  while  hardly  a  tenth  of  the  United  States  mileage 
has  more  than  one  track.  The  American  capitalisation 
per  mile  should  therefore  be  almost  doubled  in  order  to 
show  a  fair  comparison  with  the  British  average  per  mile. 
The  importance  of  distinguishing  track  miles  from  miles 
of  line  will  be  seen  in  the  next  comparison,  which  gives 
the  percentage  of  line  in  each  system  having  two  or  more 
tracks — 


Percentage  of  Line 
having  two  or 
more  Tracks. 

United  Kingdom 55-8 

Prussia  (including  Hesse) 42-3 

France 430 

United  States 8-9 


Strictly  speaking  railway  comparisons  should  be  based 
on  miles  of  track  instead  of  on  miles  of  line,  but  the  old 
method  has  been  so  long  in  use  that  it  will  not  be  easily 
displaced.  It  is  only  one  of  many  anomalies  and 
absurdities  that  have  crept  into  railway  statistics. 

A  great  variety  of  financial  and  economic  factors  enter 
into  the  question  of  railway  efficiency.  All  these  have  to 
be  taken  into  account  in  comparing  the  railway  systems 
of  various  countries.  They  have  long  been  a  subject 
of  special  study  among  railway  statisticians,  and  this 


260  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

branch  of  statistical  science  is  consequently  making 
rapid  advances.  It  owes  much  to  the  labours  of  the 
"  Bureau  of  Railway  Economics  "  recently  established 
by  the  railways  of  the  United  States  "  for  the  scientific 
study  of  transportation  problems."  This  Bureau  issues 
at  brief  intervals  most  useful  brochures  furnishing 
up-to-date  information  on  current  questions  of  railway 
finance. 

Its  summary  of  comparative  railway  statistics  of  the 
United  States,  the  United  Kingdom,  France  and  Grermany 
for  1909  will  be  very  helpful  to  every  one  engaged  in 
inquiries  like  the  present.  They  are  divided  under  four 
heads — 

1.  Railway  mileage  in  proportion  to  population  and 
area. 

2.  Motive  power  and  equipment. 

3.  The  utilisation  of  the  railways. 

4.  Their  capitalisation,  revenues  and  expenses. 

It  will  be  more  convenient  for  us  to  reverse  the  above 
arrangement  and  begin  with  the  capitalisation  of  the 
four  chief  railway  systems  of  the  world.  It  should  be 
premised  that  not  the  whole  of  the  United  States  railways, 
but  only  a  group  of  them  are  taken  into  this  comparison. 
The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  have  for  statistical 
convenience  divided  the  railways  under  their  jurisdiction 
into  geographical  groups.  These  are  numbered  from 
east  to  west ;  Group  I  comprising  the  New  England 
States,  while  Group  II  embraces  the  States  of  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Delaware  and  Maryland. 

Group  II  has  been  selected  to  represent  the  United 
States  in  this  interesting  comparison  because  it  corre- 
sponds most  nearly  with  the  United  Kingdom  in  area, 
population,  railway  mileage  and  density  of  traffic.  The 
five  States  forming  it  are  virtually  of  the  same  extent  as 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  Though  they  have  only  half 
the  density  of  population  they  possess  a  larger  number 
of  miles  of  railway,  and,  what  is  of  much  more  importance, 
they  enjoy  a  better  railway  service  at  smaller  cost.  The 
various  comparisons  made  by  the  Bureau  of  Railway 
Economics    between    the    two    systems  are  exceedingly 


FOUR  NATIONAL   RAILWAY  SYSTEMS    261 

instructive.  All  the  more  so  when  the  corresponding 
figures  are  given  for  the  two  principal  continental 
networks,  French  and  Prussian. 

First,  with  regard  to  capitalisation  per  mile,  we  have 
the  following  averages  for  the  year  1909 — 


Per  Mile  of  Line. 

United  States 

Prussia — Hesse 

France     

United  Kingdom 

$ 

59,259 
110,727 
141,301 

274,766 

£ 
11,852 
22,145 
28,260 
54,953 

Average  for  all  four  countries 

146,513 

29,302 

These  wide  variations  in  the  capital  of  cost  per  mile  of 
the  principal  railways  of  the  world  may,  and  in  fact  do, 
arise  from  a  variety  of  causes ;  many  of  them  unavoid- 
able, some  avoidable  but  legitimate,  and  others  altogether 
illegitimate.  In  the  category  of  unavoidable  causes  may 
be  placed — (1)  the  dense  settlement  of  the  older  States 
and  the  sparse  settlement  of  the  younger  States  when 
railway  building  began ;  (2)  the  comparatively  heavy 
cost  of  land,  right  of  way  and  terminal  accommodation 
in  the  older  States ;  (3)  the  more  frequent  and  expensive 
railway  services  which  in  the  older  States  had  to  be  pro- 
vided from  the  outset ;  (4)  the  extra  precautions  that 
had  to  be  taken  for  the  safety  of  passengers  and  the 
public. 

In  the  case  of  British  railways  there  have  to  be  added 
some  special  causes  of  over-capitalisation  which  were 
unavoidable  so  far  at  least  as  the  railway  builders  them- 
selves were  concerned.  These  were — (1)  grandmotherly 
supervision  and  fussy  interference  by  the  Legislature; 
(2)  the  scandalous  cost  of  obtaining  parliamentary 
authority  to  build  railways;  (3)  the  legal  formahties 
that  had  to  be  gone  through  at  every  step  in  the  history 
of  a  new  railway  undertaking ;  (4)  the  crowd  of  specu- 
lators who  were  always  launching  new  schemes  and  caus- 
ing expensive  parliamentary  contests;   (5)  the  persistent 


262  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

demands  of  the  public  for  competing  lines  and  services ; 
(6)  the  large  amount  of  mileage  which  had  to  be  built 
and  operated  within  urban  areas;  (7)  the  considerable 
mileage  which  for  various  reasons  had  to  be  abandoned 
though  the  cost  of  it  still  figures  in  the  aggregate 
capitalisation ;  (8)  the  exceptional  cost  of  stations  and 
terminals. 

But  after  all  the  unavoidable  causes  of  over-capitalisa- 
tion have  been  allowed  for  there  will  be  a  good  number 
left  that  were  avoidable.  For  them  British  railway 
builders  and  managers  are  consequently  answerable. 
They  are  of  two  kinds,  legitimate  and  illegitimate. 
Familiar  examples  of  the  former  are — (1)  the  large 
nominal  additions  made  to  capital  by  the  conversion  and 
consolidation  of  stocks ;  (2)  the  imremunerative  lines 
which  had  to  be  built  for  special  reasons — ^to  satisfy 
popular  demands,  to  serve  important  local  interests, 
or  to  protect  traffic  which  might  have  been  diverted  to 
other  railways ;  (3)  the  exaggerated  interest  taken  by 
British  railway  managers  in  passenger  business,  a  policy 
which  entails  expensively  equipped  lines  and  rolling 
stock;  (4)  the  difficulty  they  experienced  previous  to 
the  advent  of  street  tramways  in  coping  with  their 
suburban  traffic ;  (5)  the  large  proportion  of  two, 
three  and  four  track  mileage  which  they  have  had  to 
provide. 

When  ever3i}hing  that  is  possible  has  been  said  in 
excuse  for  British  railway  capitalisation,  when  the  un- 
avoidable and  the  legitimate  causes  of  excessive  expendi- 
ture have  all  been  counted  up,  the  average  per  mile  still 
remains  well  above  that  of  all  foreign  railways  which  can 
be  fairly  compared  with  our  own.  A  large  part  of  the 
excess  must  therefore  be  due  to  causes  neither  unavoidable 
nor  excusable — in  other  words,  illegitimate.  Whether  it 
originated  in  errors  of  policy  or  of  engineering  the  railway 
companies  must  bear  the  blame.  Errors  of  both  kinds 
were  undoubtedly  numerous,  but  only  a  few  of  the  most 
characteristic  need  be  recalled  at  this  late  period  of  the 
day. 

The  British  railway  pioneers  appear  to  have  started 


FOUR  NATIONAL  RAILWAY  SYSTEMS    263 

on  a  wrong  tack,  then  to  have  suddenly  changed  it  and 
rushed  to  the  opposite  extreme.  Their  first  idea  was 
simply  to  provide  iron  rails  for  the  use  of  vehicles.  The 
owners  of  the  vehicles  were  to  accompany  them  and 
take  charge  of  them.  The  railway  company  was  merely 
to  levy  tolls  as  the  canal  companies  did  and  still  do.  On 
this  assumption  there  were  to  be  no  goods  stations  and 
no  costly  terminals.  The  traffic  was  to  come  and  go  at 
ts  own  sweet  will  and  its  own  risk.  But  very  soon  the 
toll  theory  was  exploded  and  the  railway  companies 
had  to  become  independent  carriers.  Having  made  this 
new  departure  they  over-did  it.  They  tried  to  get 
everything  into  their  own  hands,  and  that  has  been  their 
mistaken  policy  ever  since. 

First  they  drove  off  all  the  private  carriers  who  had 
been  using  the  railways  and  relieving  them  from  the  most 
difficult  and  unpleasant  part  of  their  work,  namely,  the 
collection  and  delivery  of  goods.  A  whole  series  of  evil 
effects  flowed  from  this  early  mistake  of  the  railway 
companies.  It  committed  them  to  an  enormous  outlay 
of  capital  on  goods  stations  and  terminals,  and  subse- 
quently to  a  heavy  annual  expense  in  the  working  of 
them.  It  provided  a  new  opening  for  competition 
between  rival  lines — competition  which  was  destined  to 
become  the  most  foolish  and  wasteful  of  all.  It  is  not 
with  their  train  services  so  much  as  with  their  lorries 
and  parcel  vans  that  British  railways  fight  each  other. 
It  is  not  on  their  own  tracks  but  on  the  public  streets  that 
they  do  their  most  wasteful  competing. 

How  much  of  their  over-capitalisation  may  be  due  to 
their  extravagant  collection  and  delivery  system  it  were 
hard  to  say,  but  it  must  be  a  substantial  item.  Its 
importance  may  be  guessed  from  the  much  smaller 
capitalisation  of  the  American  railways,  which  have 
never  hampered  themselves  with  collection  and  delivery 
work.  The  American  parcel  express  may  be  a  rapacious 
auxiliary  of  the  railways,  but  it  has  spared  them  many 
hundred  million  dollars  of  capital  expenditure.  It  has 
enabled  them  to  economise  tremendously  in  rolling  stock 
as   well  as  in   goods   stations   and  terminals.     In   the 


264  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

following  comparisons  between  British  and  foreign 
railways  these  points  will  come  out  very  strikingly. 

Of  all  the  many  forms  of  over-expenditure  from  which 
British  railways  and  their  shareholders  are  now  suffering, 
the  one  most  open  to  criticism  is  that  on  terminals. 
It  is  peculiarly  objectionable  because,  as  has  been  indi- 
cated, it  was  to  a  large  extent  gratuitous.  At  the  outset 
it  was  incurred  in  order  to  take  work  from  outside  carriers 
which  they  were  already  doing  weU,  and  might  have 
continued  to  do  better  than  the  railway  companies  have 
been  able  to  do  it  for  themselves.  This  needless  and  as 
it  turned  out  most  unwise  innovation  involved  the 
companies  in  enormous  outlays  of  capital  which  might 
have  been  otherwise  unnecessary.  To  this  day  it 
entails  a  heavy  and  increasing  burden  on  their  working 
expenses. 

In  this  and  other  important  respects  the  American 
railway  pioneers  have  been  much  more  fortunate  than 
the  British.  They  were  not  blackmailed  as  the  first 
British  railways  were  by  lawyers,  landowners  and  legis- 
lators. They  could  go  where  they  pleased  and  take  what 
they  pleased,  on  the  one  condition  that  they  went  ahead. 
No  scruples  about  pubUc  convenience  or  even  public 
safety  were  allowed  to  stand  in  their  way.  On  the 
prairie  railways  fencing  was  imknown.  For  years  they 
required  no  mechanical  signalling.  They  were  allowed 
to  cross  roads  and  even  busy  streets  on  the  level.  Their 
saving  on  bridges  must  consequently  have  been  immense. 
They  were  able  to  economise  even  more  on  terminals. 
Not  until  within  the  past  ten  years  did  their  expenditure 
under  this  head  approach  the  British  level,  but  they  are 
now  fast  overhauling  and  even  overshooting  it.  The 
terminal  difficulty  has  hitherto  been  a  pecuHar  affliction 
of  British  railways,  but  the  Americans  are  now  coming 
in  for  their  share  of  it. 

The  ultimate  test  of  railway  efficiency  is  earning  power 
in  relation  to  capital  expended.  In  this  there  are  three 
elements — gross  revenue,  working  expenses  and  net 
revenue.  The  following  tables  exhibit  the  four  national 
railway  systems  from  these  points  of  view.     The  figures 


FOUR   NATIONAL  RAILWAY  SYSTEMS    265 

are  given  in  dollars  as  in  the  American  tables  from  which 
they  are  quoted — 


Four  National  Railway  Systems. 
I.  Their  Operating  Revenues  per  Mile,  1909. 


Goods. 

Passengers. 

Total. 

United  Bangdom        .... 

$ 

12,433 

10,702 

23,135 

France 

7,196 

6,210 

13,406 

Prassia — Hesse 

13,580 

7,476 

21,056 

United  States 

7,184 

3,172 

10,356 

Five  Eastern  States  .... 

16,693 

6,328 

22,021 

(New  York,  Pennsylvania,  New 

Jersey,  Delaware  and  Maryland) 

II.  Their  Gross  Receipts,  Working  Expenses  and  Net  Receipts 
PER  Mile,  1909. 


Gross 

Working 

Net 

Receipts. 

Expenses. 

Receipts. 

$ 

9 

$ 

United  Kingdom       .... 

23,135 

14,833 

8,302 

France.       .       .       . 

13,406 

7,765 

5,641 

Prussia — ^Hesse          .... 

21,056 

14,527 

6,529 

United  States 

10,356 

6,851 

3,505 

Five  Eastern  States  .... 

22,021 

14,674 

7,347 

In  the  above  table  there  are  three  remarkable  examples 
of  uniformity.  The  British,  Prussian  and  Eastern  State 
railways  coincide  to  a  few  dollars  per  mile  in  their  working 
expenses.  Tliey  are  also  very  much  alike  in  their  gross 
receipts,  but  their  net  receipts  differ  more  widely. 
British  railways  earn  $23,135  per  mile  with  an  expenditure 
of  $14,833,  and  thus  obtain  $8,302  net  revenue.  The 
corresponding  Prussian  totals  are — Gross  receipts  $21,056, 
working  expenses  $14,527,  and  net  receipts  $6,529.  The 
United  States  Group  II  comprising  the  five  Eastern 
States  earns  $22,021  gross,  expends  $14,674,  and  clears  net 
$7,347.     But  these  very  similar  earnings  per  mile  have 


266 


BRITISH   RAILWAYS 


to  be  distributed  over  nearly  three  times  the  amount  of 
British  as  of  foreign  capital— 


Capital 
per  mile. 

Net 
Revenue. 

Percentage 
to  Capital. 

United  Kingdom       .... 

Prussia— Hesse 

Eastern  States 

274,766 
110,727 
128,000 

8,302 
6,629 
7,347 

$ 
30 
5-8 
6-7 

After  this  striking  proof  of  the  over-capitaHsation  of 
British  railways,  it  may  not  be  surprising  to  discover 
other  exaggerations.  It  would  seem  that  they  are  also 
over-equipped  in  comparison  with  the  three  other  great 
railway  systems.  Subjoined  is  an  interesting  comparison 
of  their  rolling  stock — 


Four  National  Railway  Systems. 
I.  Locomotives  and  Cars  per  1000  Miles  of  Line. 

Loco-          Passenger 
motives.           Cars. 

Freight 
Cars. 

United  Kingdom       ....  |       980        i      2,270 

France 480        ;      1,159 

Prussia— Hesse           ....  1        835        1      1,609 

United  States 243       j         136 

Eastern  States 561                375 

32,020 
12,811 
17,530 
8,809 
21,128 

With  little  more  than  half  the  number  of  locomotives 
in  proportion  to  mileage  of  Hne,  the  United  States 
railways  do  a  great  deal  more  work  than  the  British. 
Unfortunately  close  comparisons  are  impossible  owing  to 
the  meagre  character  of  British  statistics,  but  wherever 
they  can  be  made  they  are  more  favourable  to  foreign 
railways  than  to  our  own.  The  United  States  in  par- 
ticular has  a  right  to  crow  over  us  in  this  respect.  And 
it  does,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  following  extract  from 
Bulletin  No.  24  of  the  Bureau  of  Railway  Economics. ^ 

"  The  railways  of  the  United  States,  with  number  of 
freight  cars  per  mile  of  line  but  a  fraction  over  one -fourth 


1  Comparative  Railway  Statistics   of  the   United  States,  the  United 
Kingdom,  France  and  Germany,  p.  8. 


FOUR  NATIONAL  RAILWAY  SYSTEMS     267 

of  that  of  the  United  Kingdom,  have  a  freight  train 
density  over  one -third  as  great.  The  freight  revenues, 
per  mile  of  line,  are  over  one -half  as  great.  The  railways 
of  the  United  States  with  less  than  one-sixteenth  as  many 
passenger  cars  per  mile  of  line,  have  a  passenger  train 
density  nearly  one -fifth  that  of  the  United  Kingdom, 
and  passenger  revenues  per  mile  of  line  little  less  than 
one-fourth  as  great." 

In  other  words,  American  railways  do  more  work,  in 
proportion  to  their  mileage  and  equipment,  than  our  own 
railways  do.  Considering  how  much  less  favourably 
situated  they  are  in  respect  of  population  and  industrial 
development,  that  fact  is  exceedingly  creditable  to  them, 
and  our  railway  managers  might  make  a  special  effort 
to  discover  so  important  a  secret.  Why  should  it  be 
possible  for  the  railroads  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania 
to  average  2,200,000  ton  miles  per  mile  of  line,  when  one 
of  our  best  heavy  lines — the  North-Eastern — averaged 
in  the  same  year  (1908)  only  739,000  ton  miles?  Or 
why  should  the  North-Eastern  in  the  same  year  have 
been  content  with  average  train  loads  of  107  tons,  when 
similar  roads  in  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  were  doing 
four  times  as  much — 412  against  107  tons  ? 


BOOK  SIXTH— THEIR  POLITICAL 
RELATIONS 

CHAPTER  XXIII 

TO   THE   LEGISLATURE 

/    In   contrasting    the    political   relations    of   the    early 
/  railways  with  those  of  the  present  day  the  most  notable 
I  change  to  be  seen  is  in  the  attitude  of  Parliament,  or 
\  rather  of  the  House  of  Commons,  towards  them.     While 
'the  new  form  of  transportation  was  novel  and  wonderful 
'it  was  enthusiastically  encouraged,  except  by  Tory  land- 
owners who  resented  its  encroachment  on  their  privacy. 
[But  before  it  had  well  established  itself  an  outcry  of 
\monopoly  was  raised  against  it.     Parliament  wavered 
and  fluctuated  between  these  two  contrary  influences. 
It  favoured  the  new-born  power,  but  at  the  same  time 
was  rather  afraid  of  it. 

The  free-trade  sentiment  of  the  age  conflicted  with  the 
love  of  authority  and  control.  Railway  legislation  was 
driven  now  in  one  direction  and  then  in  the  other.  Some- 
times in  the  same  Act  there  are  indications  of  both  these 
contradictory  views.  While  the  planning  of  the  main 
lines  is  considered  a  proper  subject  of  legislative  super- 
vision, interference  with  the  working  of  them  is  strongly 
deprecated.  On  the  whole  the  railway  companies  agreed 
with  that  distinction,  but  it  was  not  long  maintained. 
It  was  the  ruling  idea  of  the  memorable  year  1844,  when 
the  first  attempt  was  made  at  a  consolidated  railway  law. 
f  We  owe  to  the  famous  Select  Committee  of  1844  not 
\a  few  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  railway  policy. 
They  have  the  additional  distinction  of  being  associated 


( 


TO  THE  LEGISLATURE  269 

with  the  name  of  Mr.  Gladstone,  who  was  chairman  of 
the  Committee,  and  doubtless  the  chief  author  of  its 
various  reports — five  in  all,  I  believe.  His  colleagues 
were  for  the  most  part  men  of  mark  and  business  capacity. 
The  names  of  Colonel  Wilson  Patten,  Mr.  Labouchere 
(the  elder),  Mr.  Edward  Horsman,  Mr.  Beckett  Denison, 
Viscount  Sandown  and  Sir  John  Easthope,  show  that  it 
was  as  good  a  Committee  of  the  kind  as  the  House  of 
Commons  of  that  day  could  have  produced,  and  it  certainly 
had  no  lack  of  able  men. 

(The  instruction  given  to  it  implies  that  its  special 
object  was  legislative,  and  not  administrative,  control 
of  the  railway  system.     It  read  thus — 

"  To  consider  any  and  what  new  provisions  ought  to 
be  introduced  into  such  railway  Bills  as  may  come  before 
this  House  during  the  present  or  future  sessions  for  the 
advantage  of  the  public  and  the  improvement  of  the 
railway  system." 

CJts^^^bj^t,  in  short,  was  to  produce  a  parliamentary 
odel  on  which  railway  Acts  might  be  framed  hereafter. 
It  was  characteristic  of  Mr.  Gladstone  to  undertake  with 
a  light  heart  so  Herculean  a  task.  If  he  over-rated  his 
ability  and  his  prescience  he  still  achieved  a  great  work. 
Many  regulations  which  originated  with  the  Committee 
of  1844  survive  to  this  day  either  in  whole  or  in  part — 
notably  the  Lands  Clauses  Consolidation  section.  The 
attitude  it  assumed  towards  the  railways  is  consequently 
of  special  significance.  It  was  on  the  whole  favourable, 
especially  in  the  frankness  with  which  it  recognised  the 
invaluable  services  they  were  rendering  to  the  country. 
On  this  point  the  Committee  spoke  out  warmly  in  its 
first  report — 

*'  It  is  manifestly  of  great  national  importance  to  give 
countenance  and  aid  to  the  investment  of  capital  in 
domestic  improvements,  and  the  very  complaint  of 
monopoly  which  is  urged  against  the  railway  companies 
is  an  indication  and  a  measure  of  the  increased  accommo- 
dation to  the  traffic  of  the  country  which  they  have 
afforded,  inasmuch  as  it  has  not  been  so  much  by  statutory 
enactments  granting  to  them  special  privileges  as  by 


r 
i( 


270  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

superior  cheapness,  security  and  rapidity  of  travelling 
that  their  command  of  the  intercourse  of  their  districts 
has  been  acquired,  and  the  Committee  doubt  whether  the 
establishment  of  railways  in  this  country  does  not  afford 
a  more  remarkable  instance  than  can  be  cited  from  any 
analogous  subject  matter  of  immense  and  certain  and 
almost  uniform  benefit  to  the  public  combined  with  a 
very  moderate  standard  of  average  remuneration  to  the 
projectors." 

The  two  striking  features  of  that  quotation  are  its 
involved  parliamentary  English  and  its  flattering  judg- 
ment on  the  railways.  It  may  be  even  a  little  too 
flattering,  but  that  would  be  a  much  more  lenient  fault 
than  the  parliamentarians  of  to-day  commit,  whose  only 
thought  about  a  railway  Bill  is  how  to  obstruct  it  or, 
better  still,  to  throw  it  out.  The  Committee  of  1844  at 
least  conceded  to  railways  the  right  to  live,  but  even 
>that  is  sometimes  questioned  now-a-days.  Legislative 
control  and  administrative  freedom  were  advocated  by 
the  Committee  in  the  following  terms — 

"  The  Committee  entered  upon  their  inquiries  with  a 
strong  prepossession  against  any  general  interference  by 
the  Government  in  the  management  and  working  of 
railways,  and  they  have  not  seen  reason  to  alter  their 
first  impressions  on  that  subject.  But  with  regard  to 
railway  legislation  they  are  convinced  that  it  is  ahke 
clear  from  reasoning  and  from  experience  that  it  should 
henceforth  be  subjected  to  an  habitual  and  effective 
supervision  on  the  part  of  the  Government." 

Such  supervision  had,  in  fact,  already  begun.  A  new 
department  had  been  organised  at  the  Board  of  Trade 
for  dealing  with  railways.  Mr.  Samuel  Laing,  after- 
wards chairman  of  the  Brighton  Railway,  was  its  first 
chairman,  and  a  very  energetic  one  he  proved.  Thanks 
to  him  many  ambiguous  points  in  railway  law  and  practise 
were  definitely  determined.  He  also  endeavoured  to 
realise  the  ambition  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  have 
a  comprehensive  network  of  railways  mapped  out  in 
advance,  so  that  every  new  line  authorised  might 
be    fitted   into    its    proper    place.      Unfortunately    the 


TO  THE  LEGISLATURE  271 

comprehensive  plan  was  never  worked  out,  and  traces  of 
strategical  foresight  may  be  vainly  looked  for  in  our 
railway  map.  But  the  ideal  was  excellent,  and  the 
Select  Committee  of  1844  clearly  foreshadowed  it.  A 
clause  in  its  report  says — 

"  The  Committee  entertain  very  strongly  the  opinion 
that  in  the  future  proceedings  of  Parliament  railway 
schemes  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  merely  projects  of 
local  improvement,  but  that  each  new  line  should  be 
viewed  as  a  member  of  a  great  system  of  communication 
binding  together  the  various  districts  of  the  country 
with  a  closeness  and  intimacy  of  relation  heretofore 
unknown." 

This  parliamentary  dream  was  never  realised.     In  an 

age  which  worshipped  free  trade  and  glorified  private 

enterprise  its  realisation   would  have   been  impossible. 

Soon  Parliament  had  enough  to  do  to  keep  in  check  the 

rush  of  railway  Bills  which  every  new  session  let  loose 

on  it.     It  was  impossible  for  the  most  experienced  and 

conscientious  of  Select  Committees  to  exclude  all  wild-cat 

schemes.     At  times  the   Select  Committees  themselves 

seem  to  have  been  carried  away  by  the  railway  mania. 

fj     But  when  the  railway  building  programme  was  nearly 

[  finished  a  new  parliamentary  regime  began.     This  was 

Vthe  battle  of  the  rates  and  classifications.     As  it  proceeded 

ythe  House  of  Commons  became  gradually  less  and  less 

Uriendly  to  the  railways.     It  could  not  resist  the  rising 

{tide  of  democracy,  and  from  this  period  onward  railway 

llegislation  became  more  favourable  to  the  traders  than  to 

\he  railways.     The  latter  were  not  only  hedged  round 

with  statutory  restrictions  and  disabilities,  but  they  had 

various  special  authorities  set  over  them.     Whereas  in 

/their  early  days  they  had  to  answer  to  Parliament  alone, 

/they    were    now    subject    to    Railway    Commissioners, 

/  municipal  councils,  and  even  district  councils.     At  the 

I  same  time  the   Board  of  Trade   continued  to  steadily 

\increase  and  multiply  its  supervisory  powers. 

In  this  third  stage  of  railway  development  the  officials 
found  themselves  beset  with  regulations  and  restrictions. 
They  had  so  many  special  authorities  set  over  them  that 


272  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

they  never  knew  which  of  them  they  were  to  be  hauled 
before  next.  Among  so  many  tribimals  it  was  difficult 
to  choose.  Some  companies  would  rather  deal  direct 
with  Parliament,  which  in  practice  means  with  the  House 
of  Commons.  Some  preferred  the  semi-official  mediation 
of  the  Board  of  Trade.  Some  would  welcome  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  Minister  of  Railways.  But  all  of  them  were 
and  still  are  very  shy  of  that  hybrid  tribunal — the  Railway 
and  Canal  Commissioners.  They  consider  that  it  has 
generally  proved  a  waste  of  time  and  money  to  go  before 
it.  Rather,  they  say,  risk  the  most  capricious  vote  of  the 
House  of  Commons. 

The  late  Sir  Robert  Inglis,  when  he  was  Greneral 
Manager  of  the  Great  Western  Railway,  expressed  this 
view  very  strongly  in  the  Memorandum  which  he  sub- 
mitted to  the  Railway  Conference  of  1909.  Applying  it 
to  the  question  of  working  agreements,  he  strongly 
advocated  going  direct  to  Parliament  for  their  ratification. 
In  the  case  of  the  triple  agreement  between  the  Great 
Central,  Great  Eastern  and  Great  Northern  Companies, 
that  would  have  been  a  wiser  course  than  the  one  actually 
adopted,  namely,  going  first  to  the  Railway  and  Canal 
Commissioners  and  then  to  Parliament,  and  faihng  with 
both.     Sir  Robert's  view  was  thus  set  forth — 

"  It  is  submitted  that  no  better  tribunal  for  the  author- 
isation of  a  combination  between  companies,  whether  b}'' 
amalgamation  or  in  any  less  complete  form,  can  be 
devised  than  Parliament  itself,  and  that  the  present 
system  of  submitting  working  agreements  to  the  Railway 
and  Canal  Commission  should  be  abolished.  The  Rail- 
way and  Canal  Commission  has  no  legislative  powers,  and 
it  is  hardly  to  be  conceived  that  Parliament  will  delegate 
such  powers  to  it.  .  .  .  It  has  been  shown  by  the  reports 
of  various  Parliamentary  Committees  that  railway 
companies  have,  both  under  the  General  Act  of  1845  and 
under  some  of  their  special  Acts,  powers  to  enter  into 
agreements  between  one  another,  and  it  is  better  to  leave 
these  powers  in  their  present  position,  with  the  right  to 
have  recourse  to  Parhament  for  any  special  powers  they 
may  from  time  to  time  require,  than  to  attempt  to  exact 


TO  THE  LEGISLATURE  273 

any  general  provisions  at  the  present  time,  which  probably, 
when  the  time  comes  for  their  exercise,  will  be  foimd  not 
to  meet  the  special  circumstances  of  the  case  in  which 
they  are  sought  to  be  applied." 

Though  he  preferred  the  House  of  Commons  to  the 
Railway  and  Canal  Commissioners,  Sir  Robert  had  little 
love  for  either  of  them.  In  this  he  no  doubt  was  a 
correct  spokesman  of  railway  managers  generally.  What 
they  wanted  most  was  to  be  left  alone  in  free  and  reason- 
able exercise  of  the  parliamentary  powers  they  already 
possessed.  All  fair-minded  people  would  agree  with 
that,  but  Sir  Robert  Inglis  overlooked  the  stumbling- 
block  that  these  powers  have  to  be  interpreted  by  qualified 
courts  of  law.  Whatever  Acts  of  Parliament,  old  or  new, 
may  seem  to-day,  it  is  the  judicial  interpreters — in  this 
case  the  Railway  and  Canal  Commissioners — who  must 
have  the  last  word. 

So  long  as  the  railway  companies  have  to  apply  to 
Parliament  for  every  power  or  facility  which  they  may 
require  for  carrying  on  their  business,  so  long  will  they 
also  be  subject  to  judicial  veto.  The  only  escape  from 
this  double  hardship  is  to  be  found  in  some  sort  of  ad- 
ministrative control  such  as  now  exists  in  a  haK-developed 
form  in  the  Board  of  Trade,  or  which  might  be  much 
.     more  fully  realised  in  a  Ministry  of  Commerce. 

rFair  and  just  legislation  is  a  primary  requisite  of  railway 
success,  but  it  can  hardly  be  said  that  British  railways 
have  ever  enjoyed  it  for  long  at  a  time.  It  has  been  shown 
how  they  were  penalised  in  all  their  original  expenditure. 
No  sooner  had  they  got  their  heads  out  of  that  noose  and 
begun  to  get  moderate  returns  on  their  capital  outlay 
than  a  cry  of  monopoly  was  raised  against  them.  To 
this  and  all  subsequent  outcries  of  a  similar  kind  ParHa- 
ment  promptly  responded.  It  began  with  a  sweeping 
claim  to  regulate  rates,  and  went  on  from  one  thing 
to  another,  until  the  whole  railway  system  was 
parliamenteered. 

At  intervals  of  about  ten  years  anti-railway  crusades 
were  started  at  Westminster,  and  they  are  still  going  on. 
In  the  six  years  1888  to  1894  a  continuous  battle  of  rates 


// 


274  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

[   land  classifications  had  to  be  fought  with  the  traders.     It 

landed  in  a  complete  revolution  of  railway  charges  and 

!  /I conditions,   which   the   companies   were   just   beginning 

!  I  to  get  over  when  they  had  to  meet  a  still  more  formidable 

y  assault — ^that  of  organised  labour.     In  both  these  cases 

I  the  Legislature  showed  greater  sympathy  with  the  attack 

\  than  with  the  defence.     Even  level-headed  Conservative 

^legislators  seemed  to  regard  railway  companies  merely 

as  corporations  which  had  neither  souls  to  be  saved  nor 

bodies  to  be  kicked. 

The  result  of  this  anti -railway  bias  on  the  part  of  the 
popular  branch  of  the  Legislature  has  been  a  growing 
estrangement  between  our  law-makers  and  our  railway 
administrators.  The  latter  have  had  to  adopt  a  fight- 
ing policy  where  a  friendly  poHcy  would  have  been  much 
better  for  all  parties.  At  length  the  prolonged  conflict 
landed  itself  in  a  deadlock.  Between  them  the  traders 
and  the  Labour  Party  have  contrived  to  stalemate  the 
railways  at  Westminster.  While  the  parliamentary  dead- 
lock continues  little  more  can  be  done  in  the  way  of 
useful  railway  legislation.  Even  solemn  engagements 
entered  into  by  the  Government  with  representatives  of 
the  railway  companies  are  not  safe  from  parliamentary 
repudiation,  or  at  least  mutilation. 

There  must,  of  course,  be  a  recoil  one  day  from  this 
futile  obstructive  policy.  National  emergencies  are 
bound  to  arise — ^and  they  may  not  be  far  off — in  which 
the  heaviest  sacrifices  conceivable  may  be  demanded  of 
us  all.  The  railways  will  have  to  bear  in  these  trying 
times  the  largest  share  of  sacrifice  and  responsibility 
next  to  the  Government  itself.  Now  that  they  should 
be  preparing  for  it  by  husbanding  their  resources  and 
strengthening  their  organisation,  they  are  being  fleeced  and 
worried  by  politicians  whose  personal  interests  and  still 
more  their  class  interests  obscure  their  vision  of  the 
supreme  interest  of  the  nation.  The  parliamentary 
scramble  is  destroying  all  sense  of  higher  motives  and 
larger  objects. 

Suppose  that  the  British  Legislature  and  the  British 
Railways  as  now  constituted,  and  holding  their  present 


TO  THE  LEGISLATURE  275 

relations  to  each  other  of  armed  neutrality,  were  called 
upon  to  act  together  in  order  to  save  the  country  from 
a  food  famine  or  some  other  dire  calamity,  could  they  do 
all  that  the  Germans  did  in  their  meat  famine  of  1911? 
Could  the  railway  companies  be  fairly  asked  to  cut  down 
their  charges  for  carrjdng  food  by  20  or  30  per  cent,  as 
the  German  railways  then  did  ?  After  subjecting  them 
for  years  to  cast-iron  rates  which  cannot  be  varied  in 
the  sHghtest  degree  without  the  risk  of  popular  agitation, 
costly  litigation  and  perhaps  a  fresh  dose  of  hostile 
legislation,  how  could  any  Government  or  Parliament 
impose  on  them  a  task  of  which  they  might  be  financially 
incapable  ? 

When  the  German  railways  cut  down  their  rates  in 
one  direction  they  very  probably  level  them  up  some- 
where else.  They  have  a  free  hand  to  do  one  or  other  or 
both.  British  railways  cannot  do  anything  without  the 
consent  of  lawyers,  law-makers  and  Government  officials. 
They  can  level  down  their  rates  without  leave,  but  have 
to  get  leave  to  put  them  up  again.  This  is  assumed  to 
be  for  the  protection  of  traders,  but  it  generally  works 
the  other  way.  Elasticity  in  rate-making  is  what  the 
trader  needs,  and  no  legislation  can  secure  that  to  him. 
He  can  only  obtain  it  by  give-and-take  negotiation  with 
the  railway  companies.  The  worst  course  to  adopt  is 
to  wage  all-round  war  on  the  railway  companies. 

Tm^ers  in  persistently  voting  with  the  Labour  members 

against   railway  Bills,   however  reasonable,   are   simply 

hastening    nationalisation,    which    would    mean    higher 

freight  rates  within  the  year.     They  seem  to  forget  that 

the  Labour  Party  has  become  a  factor  in  the  House  of 

Commons,  and  one  much  more  likely  to  grow  in  power 

/than    to    diminish.     Its    future    influence    on    railway 

^legislation  has  to  be  seriously  considered.     So  far  it  has 

not  been  conspicuous  either  for  breadth  of  view  or  length 

/^of  vision.     On  the  contrary,  it  has  been  of  the  narrowest 

Cand    most    one-sided    kind.     A    purely   and    absolutely 

/trade  union  policy  has  been  all  along  pursued  with  regard  to 

[railway  Bills.     Labour  members  have  exhibited  positive 

\ delight  in   opposing   railway   Bills  however   reasonable 


276  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

/br  however  much  in  the  public  interest.  They  have 
even  sacrificed  the  interests  of  their  own  class  to  the 
bitterness  of  class  jealousy.  Millions  a  year  have  been 
diverted  from  the  labour  market  by  the  blind  prejudices 
of  labour  leaders  against  what  they  call  the  capitalist 
system. 
.""A  Legislature  controlled  by  such  antagonisms  cannot 
/  possibly  legislate  for  railways  in  a  broad  and  friendly 
\_^pirit.  Happily  neither  can  it  do  them  very  deadly 
^  harm.  At  the  worst  it  can  only  obstruct  their  progress 
and  condemn  them  to  permanent  stagnation.  It  cannot 
even  buy  them  out,  and  thus  realise  the  Socialist  dream 
of  nationalisation.  No  sane  community  would  entrust 
its  tramways,  let  alone  its  railways,  to  a  bod}^  of  politicians 
who  prove  in  everything  they  do  that  they  can  only  be 
dogs  in  the  manger.  If  they  were  rational  and  business- 
like they  would  seize  every  opportunity  of  exercising 
a  sensible  and  liberal  supervision  over  railways,  especially 
as  regards  rates  and  fares.  They  would  favour  instead 
of  opposing  every  attempt  of  the  railways  to  increase 
their  revenues,  if  only  in  order  to  obtain  a  fresh  excuse 
for  screwing  up  wages. 

The  policy  of  the  Labour  Party  is  reducing  the  House 
of  Commons  to  a  double  dilemma.  If  it  should  be  per- 
sisted in  it  will  soon  make  it  impossible  either  to  advance 
or  to  reduce  railway  rates.  The  existing  tariffs  will 
become  as  inflexible  as  cast-iron,  and  there  will  be  no 
means  of  modifying  them  to  meet  industrial  emergencies 
however  great  and  urgent.  As  it  is,  British  railway 
managers  have  to  regard  with  helpless  envy  the  ease  with 
which  foreign  rates  are  advanced  or  reduced  on  special 
occasions.  Now  and  then  Germany  provides  us  with 
object  lessons  in  this  connection.  During  the  "  meat 
famine  "of  1911,  as  our  free-traders  styled  it,  the  whole 
of  the  public  authorities,  the  State  railways  included, 
combined  to  reduce  to  the  utmost  the  cost  both  of  produ- 
cing and  distributing  meat.  The  various  State  Govern- 
ments devised  and  set  in  motion  schemes  for  the  breeding 
of  beef  cattle.  Other  agencies  were  started  for  the 
reclamation  and  cultivation  of  waste  lands.     Municipal 


TO  THE  LEGISLATURE  277 

councils  entered  the  market  as  wholesale  buyers,  and 
retailed  their  purchases  at  cost  price,  much  to  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  poor.  The  Government  seconded  their 
benevolent  efforts  by  giving  them  the  benefit  of  reduced 
duties  on  all  foreign  meat  imported  by  them.  Then  the 
State  railways  did  their  share  by  granting  them  special 
rates  for  the  carriage  both  of  dead  meat  and  live 
stock. 

The  common  object  of  all  these  special  arrangements 
and  concessions  was  to  eliminate  the  middle-man  as  far 
as  possible.  Local  authorities,  benevolent  societies, 
large  employers,  and  all  who  undertook  to  supply  meat 
to  the  small  consumer  at  or  under  cost  price  were  en- 
couraged in  their  good  work  by  reduced  customs  duties, 
special  railway  rates  and  other  privileges.  The  railway 
remissions  were  thus  described  at  the  time  by  a  Berlin 
correspondent — 

"  The  latter  commodity  (meat)  is  already  carried  at 
special  rates,  and  these  are  to  be  cut  down  by  20  per  cent. 
In  the  case  of  live  stock  a  reduction  of  30  per  cent,  will 
be  made.  The  Government  reserves  to  itself  the  right  of 
co-operation  in  the  fixing  of  prices  of  meat  imported  alive 
or  dead  under  these  conditions.  The  existing  special 
rates  on  sea  fish  when  it  is  conveyed  inland  on  the  order 
of  local  authorities  or  public  organisations  will  remain 
in  force  till  the  end  of  1913,  and  up  to  September  30  next 
feeding  barley  and  maize  will  be  carried  for  about  half 
the  present  charges  on  condition  that  the  benefit  goes  to 
the  stock-raisers." 

It  is  not  inconceivable  that  we  may  one  day  have  a 
meat  famine  in  this  country.  Our  open  ports  may  no 
longer  attract  adequate  supplies  from  abroad,  and  what 
will  our  position  be  then  compared  with  that  of  the 
Germans  in  1911?  Will  Parliament,  the  Grovernment, 
the  local  authorities,  the  large  employers  and  the  pubUc 
carriers  all  join  hands  as  they  did  in  Germany  and  work 
together  for  the  common  good?  Could  very  generous 
concessions  as  to  rates  of  conveyance  be  expected  from 
railways  which  Parliament  had  for  years  treated  as 
Ishmaelites  ?     However    willing    railway    directors    and 


278  BRITISH   RAILWAYS 

shareholders  might  be  to  sacrifice  their  personal  interests 
to  those  of  the  community,  could  they  suddenly  forget 
how  they  had  been  wantonly  hampered  and  obstructed 
in  their  business  by  the  politicians  who  were  now  appealing 
to  their  benevolence  ? 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

TO   THE   TRADERS 

There  are  certain  branches  of  administration  in  which 
machinery  and  method  are  the  most  important  factors — 
road-making,  for  example.  There  are  certain  others  in 
which  the  personal  element  should  predominate  and  the 
mechanical  element  should  be  reduced  to  the  simplest 
possible  form.  Education  as  now  carried  on  in  this 
country  is  a  striking  proof  of  how  a  subject  essentially 
simple  in  itself  can  be  unnecessarily  complicated  and 
confused  by  excessive  administration.  The  relations 
which  should  obtain  between  the  railways  and  their 
customers,  particularly  their  trading  customers,  su£Fer 
from  the  same  evil  tendency.  Their  natural  simpUcity 
is  overwhelmed  by  a  multitude  of  laws,  regulations  and 
conflicting  authorities. 

The  railway  and  the  trader,  instead  of  being  allowed  to 
transact  their  business  freely  and  quietly  as  other  business 
is  transacted,  are  continually  surrounded  by  a  crowd  of 
politicians,  lawyers  and  Government  officials  who  dictate 
to  them  what  they  should  do,  and  how  and  when  and 
where  they  should  do  it.  They  have  had  schedules  of 
freight  rates  imposed  on  them  by  Parliaments  without  any 
practical  knowledge  of  railway  traffic.  They  cannot  vary 
their  rates  without  a  long  argument  over  them  with  the 
Board  of  Trade,  which  may  prove  perfectly  futile,  the 
Board  having  no  power  to  enforce  its  decisions.  If  they 
want  a  decisive  judgment  they  have  to  go  to  the  Railway 
and  Canal  Commissioners  and  fight  it  out  with  a  costly 
array  of  solicitors  and  counsel,  as  if  it  were  a  suit  in 
Chancery.  Anytlmig  more  foreign  to  ordinary  commercial 
ideas  and  practices  can  hardly  be  imagined. 

279 


280  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

There  may  have  been  some  excuse  for  this  legal  and 
political  interference  in  the  early  days  of  the  railways, 
when  everj^hing  connected  with  them  was  novel,  crude 
and  unregulated.  From  very  small  and  simple  beginnings 
traffic  grew  more  and  more  varied  and  complex.  An 
increasing  diversity  of  goods  had  to  be  classified  and 
rates  fixed  for  each  of  the  hundreds  of  articles  in  each 
class.  In  connection  with  each  mileage  rate  there  might 
be  a  great  diversity  of  service.  The  same  article  might 
travel  by  different  classes  of  trains.  It  might  have  to 
be  handled  at  different  terminals,  some  cheap  and  others 
costly.  It  might  be  loaded  and  unloaded  by  the  trader 
himself  or  by  the  railway  company.  It  might  be  carried 
in  the  railway  company's  wagons  or  in  those  of  the  trader. 
All  these  and  innumerable  other  differentiations  had  to 
be  taken  into  account  in  rate-making. 

Such  a  difficult  and  gigantic  task  could  not  possibly 
have  been  carried  through  without  mistakes  and  mis- 
understandings. The  nature  of  the  case  required  that 
it  should  be  done  in  the  first  instance  entirely  by  the 
railway  authorities.  The  original  rates  were  all  more  or 
less  experimental,  and  for  that  reason  they  had  to  be 
arbitrary.  It  was  impossible  to  consult  the  traders  about 
them  beforehand,  however  willing  the  rate-makers  might 
have  been.  It  must  be  admitted,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  the  rate-makers  fully  realised  their  power  and  made 
the  most  of  it.  During  this  tentative  period  of  railway 
history  the  Greneral  Manager  was  an  autocrat,  and  doubt- 
less his  power  was  frequently  abused,  as  autocratic  power 
often  is. 

The  chronic  feuds  of  the  railway  companies  themselves 
did  not  tend  to  allay  the  hostile  feelings  of  the  pubHc. 
In  the  parliamentary  duels  in  which  time  and  money 
were  so  lavishly  wasted  questions  of  rates  frequently 
arose.  They  were  hotly  argued  by  pugnacious  counsel 
on  both  sides.  The  attempts  made  to  explain  them 
usually  resulted  in  rendering  them  more  uninteUigible, 
and  nothing  irritates  a  business  man  so  much  as  charges 
which  he  cannot  imderstand.  The  state  of  feeling  that 
prevailed  during  this  period  between  the  railways   and 


TO  THE  TRADERS  281 

the  traders  was  graphically  described  in  the  report  of  the 
Select  Committee  of  1888  on  the  charges  of  railway  and 
canal  companies.  The  Committee  thus  summarised  the 
grievances  of  the  traders  which  witnesses  of  various 
classes  had  brought  before  them — 

"  The  complaints  made  against  railway  companies  in 
respect  to  goods  traffic  submitted  to  your  Committee  may 
be  arranged  under  the  following  heads — 

"1.  That  rates  in  excess  of  the  maximum  authorised 
by  the  special  Acts  are  in  many  cases  exacted. 

"2.  That  on  the  same  line  of  railway  higher  rates  are 
charged  on  some  kinds  of  goods  as  compared  with  others, 
although  the  cost  to  the  company  of  performing  the 
service  is  no  greater  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other. 

"  3.  That  in  many  cases  lower  rates  are  charged  for 
goods  imported  or  for  export  than  for  the  same  articles 
produced  or  for  consumption  in  this  country. 

"  4.  That  preferential  rates  are  granted  to  one  port  or 
town  as  against  another. 

"5.  That  rates  are  now  in  many  instances  much  higher 
than  they  were  many  years  ago,  and  that  excessive  though 
not  illegal  rates  prevent  the  development  of  traffic,  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  public  and  of  the  railways  themselves. 

"  6.  That  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  obtaining  redress 
of  private  individuals  against  railway  companies  for 
over-charge  or  illegal  preference  are  almost  insuperable. 

"7.  That  in  consequence  of  the  multiplicity  of  private 
Acts,  imperfect  classification  and  defective  rate-books  it 
is  almost  impracticable  to  ascertam  the  particular  class 
to  which  any  article  belongs,  and  the  rates  which  the 
railway  company  will  charge  or  is  authorised  to  charge 
for  its  conveyance." 

It  is  impossible  to  imagine  such  an  array  of  complaints 
being  brought  before  a  Select  Committee  at  the  present 
day.  Though  rate-books  are  not  yet  by  any  means 
perfect,  they  have  made  a  great  advance  both  in  consis- 
tency and  inteUigibihty  since  those  fighting  times.  It  is 
due  to  the  Select  Committee  of  1888  to  acknowledge  the 
valuable  service  which  it  rendered  in  bringing  about 
improved  methods  and  conditions. 


282  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

After  fifty  or  sixty  years  of  many-sided  controversy  a 
scheme  of  classification  and  ruling  was  at  length  evolved. 
It  assumed  legal  form  in  the  schedules  of  1888  and  the 
Consolidating  Act  of  1894.  This  legislation  placed  the 
traders  on  fom  ground  in  relation  to  the  railway  com- 
panies. It  defined  the  rating  powers  of  the  companies 
and  provided  the  traders  with  legal  means  of  protection 
against  the  abuse  of  these  powers.  Only  one  grave  defect 
remained  in  the  absence  of  a  cheap  and  expeditious 
method  of  settling  disputes.  This  and  the  mischievous 
weakness  of  members  of  Parliament  for  tilting  at  the 
railway  companies  and  courting  popularity  at  their 
expense  are  the  chief  difficulties  of  railway  administration 
at  the  present  time. 

Sweeping  as  the  assertion  may  seem,  it  is  literally  true 
that  the  House  of  Commons  is  the  source  of  the  worst  of 
our  railway  troubles.  It  keeps  up  continual  irritation 
between  the  companies  and  their  servants  as  weU 
as  between  the  companies  and  the  traders.  A  Parlia- 
mentary debate  on  any  railway  question  invariably  gives 
the  public  the  idea  that  the  companies  are  Ishmaelites 
with  every  man's  hand  against  them.  Fortunately  the 
reality  is  very  different.  Ninety -nine  per  cent,  of  their 
business  is  done  just  as  peaceably  and  smoothly  as  that 
of  any  other  large  industry.  Compared  with  the  vast 
number  of  transactions  which  go  through  their  hands, 
the  disputes  which  reach  the  pubhc  ear  are  infinitesimal. 
Many  even  of  these  are  settled  out  of  court,  and  there 
is  a  steady  downward  tendency  in  the  volume  of  railway 
litigation.  If  all  his  Majesty's  courts  had  as  Httle  to 
do  as  the  Railway  and  Canal  Commissioners  this  would 
be  a  poor  country  for  the  legal  profession.  It  is  only  at 
long  intervals  that  the  public  hear  anything  about  them, 
and  the  really  serious  cases  which  come  before  them  are 
few  and  far  between. 

In  the  first  ten  years  of  the  Commission  as  reconstituted 
under  the  Act  of  1888  the  total  number  of  complaints 
which  came  before  it  was  683,  or  at  the  rate  of  68  per 
annum.  But  35  of  them  were  against  canal  companies, 
consequently  the  railway  cases  proper  were  only  648,  or 


TO  THE  TRADERS  283 

65  per  annum.  One  half  of  them  (335)  alleged  mi- 
reasonable  or  excessive  rates.  Rather  more  than  a 
fourth  (175)  complained  of  undue  preference,  and  the 
other  fourth  (173)  related  to  minor  matters  of  delay  in 
transit,  through  rates,  rebates,  etc. 

It  will  be  interesting  to  traders  and  railway  grievance- 
mongers  at  large  to  learn  the  ultimate  fate  of  these  683 
complaints.  One-third  of  them  (218)  are  said  in  the 
report  of  the  Commissioners  "  to  have  been  settled  more 
or  less  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  complainants."  In 
another  third  (231)  "  the  complainants  were  not  satisfied." 
The  remaining  234  cases  "  were  not  followed  up  by  the 
complainants."  Thus  in  the  whole  decade  only  218 
charges  against  railway  and  canal  companies  were  proved 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Commissioners.  Out  of  millions 
of  railway  and  canal  rates  the  insignificant  number  of 
twenty  per  annum  were  successfully  objected  to. 

There  has  been  of  late  years  a  tendency  toward  the 
increase  of  minor  complaints,  but  a  surprisingly  smaU 
proportion  of  them  are  sustained  by  the  Court.  In  1908-9 
out  of  a  total  of  280  cases  entered,  only  91  were  "  settled 
more  or  less  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  complainants." 
In  122  cases  "  the  complainants  were  not  satisfied," 
and  62  "  were  not  followed  up."  The  complaints  with- 
drawn or  rejected  numbered  184,  or  nearly  70  per  cent, 
of  the  whole.  The  truth  seems  to  be  that  the  Railway 
and  Canal  Commissioners'  Court  is  used  by  traders  more 
as  a  bogey  for  the  railway  rate -makers  than  as  a  means 
of  redress  for  hona  fide  grievances.  Doubtless  not  a  few 
concessions  are  made  to  them  under  threat  of  legal 
action. 

The  above  figures  may  be  useful  in  checking  the  strong 
assertions  that  are  often  made  in  parliamentary  speeches 
and  Chamber  of  Commerce  resolutions  about  oppressive 
and  inequitable  rates.  But  the  Chambers  of  Commerce 
are  not  always  unreasonable.  It  is  to  be  noted  with 
satisfaction  that  they  seldom  adopt  the  fiery  resolutions 
which  their  anti-railway  members  are  always  bringing 
f  or  ward  .p  Either  they  tone  them  down  or  shelve  them 
or  throw  them  out.     This  feature  of  their  discussions  has 


284  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

become  more  prominent  since  railway  directors  and 
managers  got  into  personal  touch  with  the  Chambers  of 
Commerce  and  began  to  take  part  in  their  discussions. 

In  this  respect  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Associated 
Chambers  of  Commerce  for  the  United  Kingdom  in  March 
1912  was  a  very  encouraging  omen.  No  less  than  four 
railway  resolutions  were  on  the  agenda,  and  they  were 
all  discussed  temperately  as  well  as  intelligently.  Not 
only  so,  but  the  spokesman  of  the  railway  companies,  Sir 
Charles  Owens,  spoke  at  some  length  on  two  of  them. 
In  both  cases  he  received  a  very  attentive  hearing,  and 
his  speeches  had  a  manifest  effect  on  the  subsequent 
voting.  This  in  itself  is  a  notable  advance  toward  a 
better  understanding  between  railways  and  traders,  and 
greater  consideration  for  each  other. 

The  1912  session  of  the  Associated  Chambers  of  Com- 
merce will,  I  believe,  rank  hereafter  among  the  most 
interesting  and  instructive  of  the  series.  It  dealt  in  a 
business-like  spirit  with  the  burning  commercial  questions 
of  the  day — ^national  insurance,  labour  troubles,  railway 
agreements,  railway  rates,  "  all-British  "  cables.  State 
telephones,  telephone  rates,  and  the  Sugar  Convention. 
No  nearer  approach  has  yet  been  made  in  this  country 
to  a  commercial  Parliament  than  was  exhibited  in  these 
three  days  of  serious,  purposeful  deliberation  by  represen- 
tatives of  industry  and  commerce  from  all  parts  of  the 
United  Kingdom.  It  was  a  marked  contrast  to  the 
corresponding  exhibitions  in  "  another  place." 

The  railway  resolutions  in  particular  were  discussed 
with  much  greater  moderation  and  less  animus  than 
heretofore.  Some  speakers  even  went  so  far  as  to  put 
in  a  good  word  for  the  railways.  Several  delegates 
opposed  a  resolution  in  favour  of  the  appointment  of  a 
Royal  Commision  "  to  inquire  into  the  present  working 
of  the  railways  of  Great  Britain,  and  to  report  how  far 
they  afford  separately  or  in  conjunction  with  other  means 
of  transit  adequate  facilities  for  the  cheap  and  rapid 
transport  of  goods  and  passengers."  One  of  them  gave 
as  his  reason  for  doing  so  "  the  very  great  progress  made 
by  the  Midland  Railway  at  Derby  in  the  last  fifteen  or 


TO  THE  TRADERS  285 

twenty  years."  Another  observed  very  truly  that  "  ever 
since  railways  were  inaugurated  they  had  been  considered 
fair  game  to  be  shot  at."  But  he  added,  if  the  railways 
were  penaHsed  the  people  who  had  placed  their  savings 
in  them  would  also  be  penalised.  Comparing  them  with 
continental  railways,  he  recalled  the  too  generally  forgotten 
fact  that  they  had  had  to  pay  outrageous  prices  for  their 
land  and  for  obtaining  Parliamentary  sanction  to  their 
Bills,  whereas  on  the  Continent  in  a  great  many  cases  the 
land  was  obtained  free,  and  legal  expenses  were  a 
minimum. 

The  railway  Bill  then  before  Parliament  received,  of 
course,  its  due  share  of  attention,  and  a  protest  against 
it  was  moved  by  the  delegate  from  Sheffield.  He  began 
his  speech,  however,  with  a  very  naive  and  significant 
admission  that  "  the  Sheffield  Chamber  desired  to  be 
reasonable  on  railway  questions,  because  the  railway 
companies  in  Sheffield  were  their  best  customers."  This 
is  an  aspect  of  the  question  which  has  not  hitherto  struck 
many  traders,  and  it  is  much  more  important  than  even 
the  friendly  delegate  from  Sheffield  may  have  been  aware. 
It  has  not  often  been  referred  to  by  railway  managers, 
though  it  gives  the  railways  one  of  their  strongest  claims 
on  the  sympathy  and  consideration  of  the  traders.  At 
the  Board  of  Trade  Conference  in  1909  Sir  Samuel  Fay 
thus  put  it — 

"It  is  not  generally  recognised  how  much  home 
industries  depend  upon  railway  purchases.  The  annual 
value  of  materials  and  stores  of  all  descriptions  bought 
by  British  railways  on  revenue  account  may  be  put  down 
roughly  at  £20,000,000  a  year,  or  nearly  equal  to  the 
value  of  three  months'  total  exports  from  the  United 
Kingdom  to  British  possessions.  When  depression  of  a 
particular  traffic  on  which  a  company  mainly  depends 
sets  in,  purchases  must  be  kept  within  the  narrowest 
possible  limits,  to  the  detriment  of  many  trades,  and 
that  at  the  very  time  when  they  are  most  in  need  of 
orders  for  work." 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  very  conciliatory  and 
wholesome  influence  which  Sir  Charles  Owens  exercised 


286  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

in  these  railway  discussions.  A  short  extract  from  one 
of  his  speeches  may  be  very  usefully  set  alongside  the 
above  quotation  from  the  report  of  the  Select  Committee 
of  1888.  A  comparison  of  the  two  will  show  how  greatly 
the  relations  between  railways  and  traders  have  improved 
in  the  past  twenty  years — 

"  Speaking  as  a  man  who  had  been  connected  with 
railways  for  half  a  century,  and  who  had  controlled  one 
of  the  large  railway  companies  for  no  less  than  fourteen 
years,  he  could  say,  both  from  his  own  experience  and  the 
experience  of  others,  that  the  managers  of  railway  com- 
panies did  recognise  that  the  interests  of  the  railway 
companies  and  the  interests  of  the  traders  were  identical. 
The  railway  companies  were  as  much  traders  as  any 
gentlemen  in  that  room ;  they  existed  to  sell  transport, 
and  they  wanted  to  sell  as  much  transport  as  possible, 
and  they  knew  that  if  they  could  sell  f&teen  articles  at 
25.  it  was  better  than  selling  ten  at  25.  Qd.  The  idea  that 
railway  companies  forced  upon  traders  the  highest  rates 
they  could  get  out  of  them  was  to  consider  the  companies 
to  be  governed  by  men  who  were  not  acquainted  with  the 
very  elements  of  business.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  man 
rose  to  the  position  of  manager  of  a  railway  company 
unless  he  had  some  amount  of  business  instinct.  He 
thought  it  was  time  that  stereotyped  attacks  upon  railway 
companies  should  cease.  The  resolution  was  asking  for 
a  strong  Departmental  Committee  to  go  to  the  very 
bottom  of  the  whole  relations  between  railway  companies 
and  traders,  but  was  it  a  fact  that  there  were  such  serious 
difficulties  between  railway  companies  and  traders  ?  " 
("  Yes.")  "  He  denied  it.  During  the  fourteen  or  fifteen 
years  he  was  General  Manager  of  a  railway  company  he 
had  had  no  serious  difference  with  traders.  He  wanted 
traders  to  look  upon  the  railway  companies  as  their 
friends.  If  there  were  things  the  traders  did  not  like 
they  should  go  and  see  the  managers  about  them,  and  he 
would  undertake  to  say  that,  if  there  was  any  reason  in 
the  case,  the  railway  companies  would  be  found  only  too 
ready  and  anxious  to  do  what  was  fair.  Resolutions  such 
as  that  before  the  meeting  were  being  continually  passed 


TO  THE  TRADERS  287 

and  becoming  stereotyped,  and  it  was  stultifying  a  great 
body  continually  to  pass  stereotyped  resolutions  which 
it  must  be  well  known  were  unlikely  to  produce  any 
effect.  It  took  years  to  allay  the  irritation  arising  from 
the  agitation  of  1888  to  1894,  and  the  annoyance  caused 
by  the  prolonged  inquiry,  and  nothing  could  be  more 
adverse  to  the  trading  interest  of  this  country  than  to 
submit  the  whole  of  the  relations  of  the  railway  companies 
and  traders  again  to  an  inquiry,  with  all  the  annoyance 
that  must  follow." 

Perhaps  the  best  way  to  avoid  any  more  official  in- 
quiries, which  it  must  be  admitted  have  oftener  proved 
futile  than  fruitful,  would  for  the  parties  to  take  things 
into  their  own  hands,  as  above  suggested,  and  arrange 
their  differences  as  far  as  possible  among  themselves. 
This  give-and-take  policy  is  being  very  successfully  carried 
out  on  some  of  the  American  railways.  Doubtless  the 
Board  of  Trade  would  be  glad  to  assist  with  it  and  to 
act  as  amicus  curice  whenever  its  services  were  required 
in  that  capacity.  In  order  to  be  able  to  do  so  efficiently 
it  should  perhaps  be  armed  with  larger  powers  of  certain 
kinds.  Working  agreements  of  a  routine  character  which 
involved  no  public  question  might  well  be  left  to  it.  It 
might  also  have  the  final  say  about  railway  rates  when 
the  companies  and  traders  cannot  agree  within  a  reasonable 
period. 

As  regards  the  amount  of  control  to  be  given  to  the 
Board  of  Trade  over  agreements  and  amalgamations,  that 
would  depend  on  the  capacity  in  which  it  was  called  upon 
to  act.  In  a  case  where  there  was  no  opposition  either 
by  other  railway  companies  or  by  traders  or  by  share- 
holders, its  duty  would  be  simply  to  confirm  and  register 
the  agreement.  Where  there  was  opposition  it  would 
have  to  hear  each  case  and  adjudicate  on  matters  of  fact, 
reserving  legal  questions  for  the  Railway  Commissioners. 
It  would  be  chiefly  by  traders  that  difficulties  would  be 
raised,  and  these  would  relate  either  to  rates  or  service. 
Already  the  Board  has  under  the  concihation  clauses 
considerable  influence  in  the  settlement  of  disputed  rates. 
Without  much  danger  to  the  railways,  that  power  might 


288  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

be  extended  by  means  of  a  proviso  that  if  within  a  certain 
time,  say  six  or  twelve  months,  the  railway  company 
and  the  trader  could  not  agree  on  a  rate,  the  Board 
should  arbitrate  on  it.  Official  arbitrators  may  sound 
shocking  to  old-fashioned  free-traders,  but  they  would 
at  least  know  their  business,  which  is  seldom  the  case 
with  the  lawyers  and  politicians  who  are  at  present  in 
control. 

The  agitation  now  being  carried  on  by  Chambers  of 
Commerce  and  other  Associations  of  traders  against  the 
revised  railway  rates,  begins  to  hold  out  some  hope  of 
friendly  compromise.  The  Employers'  Parliamentary 
Association  has,  in  course  of  a  recent  correspondence  with 
the  President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  thrown  out  the 
following  plausible  suggestion  : — The  Board  of  Trade 
should  arrange  a  conference  with  representatives  of  the 
traders  and  of  the  railway  companies,  at  which  the  railway 
companies  would  be  invited  to  show  exactly  the  amount 
of  the  increase  in  wages  involved,  and  to  satisfy  the 
conference  as  to  the  amount  of  such  increase  which 
might  reasonably  be  allocated  to  that  part  of  the  traffic 
affected  by  the  proposed  increase  in  rates.  The  con- 
ference would  also  take  into  consideration  all  such  other 
attendant  circumstances  as  would  properly  be  taken 
into  account  in  proceedings  before  the  Railway  and  Canal 
Commissioners.  By  these  means  it  is  likely  that,  without 
great  difficulty,  agreement  would  be  reached  at  some 
figure  which  would  represent  some  percentage,  possibly 
4  per  cent.,  as  claimed  by  the  railway  companies,  possibly 
something  substantially  less  as  claimed  by  the  traders. 


CHAPTER  XXV 

TO  THE   LOCAL  AUTHORITIES 

British  railways  have  now-a-days  such  a  formidable 
host  of  enemies,  and  they  are  assailed  from  such  a  variety 
of  points,  that  shareholders  can  never  tell  which  point 
is  in  greatest  danger  and  in  most  need  of  defence.  The 
consequence  is  that  in  their  bewilderment  they  seem  to 
get  paralysed  and  do  nothing.  Before  old  enemies  are 
beaten  off  new  ones  start  up,  sometimes  from  unexpected 
quarters.  It  is  hardly  possible  to  keep  an  eye  on  all 
of  them,  and  sometimes  one  drops  out  of  sight  for  a 
time.  Thus  there  has  been  little  heard  in  recent  years 
about  the  growth  of  rates  and  taxes,  which  used  to  be  a 
prominent  grievance  at  shareholders'  meetings. 

This  may  be  partly  due  to  the  effect  of  the  fiery  protests 
which  were  made  against  them  a  few  years  ago.  These 
protests  not  only  put  some  restraint  on  the  rating  author- 
ities, but  they  stirred  up  the  railway  boards  to  greater 
vigilance  with  regard  to  valuations  and  assessments. 
Directors  had  to  admit  that  great  laxity  had  prevailed  in 
this  department.  A  roundabout  and  most  inequitable 
system  of  assessments  had  in  the  case  of  the  EngUsh 
and  Welsh  railways  been  very  fruitful  of  hardships  and 
abuses.  The  Scottish  and  Irish  lines  were,  happily  for 
themselves,  not  subject  to  this  barbarous  method  of 
assessment,  and  all  they  had  to  complain  of  was  the  rates 
themselves.  Even  these  were  moderate  compared  with 
the  English  ones. 

A  campaign  against  the  English  railway  assessments 

produced  good  fruit,  in  so  far  as  many  overcharges  were 

discovered.     Important  reductions  had  to  be  made,  and 

in  flagrant  cases  refunds  were  obtained.     The  alarming 

U  289 


290  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

advance  in  rates  and  taxes  which  distinguished  the 
new  municipal  democracy  was  stayed,  and  in  1907  the 
agreeable  surprise  of  a  reduction  was  recorded.  The 
four  years  1902-1905  showed  increases  averaging  a 
quarter  of  a  million  sterling  per  annum.  In  1906  the 
increase  dropped  to  £32,000,  and  in  1907  it  suddenly 
changed  into  a  decrease  of  £102,000.  But  this  welcome 
relief  did  not  last  long.  Next  year  the  upward  movement 
was  resumed,  and  no  further  check  was  experienced  until 
1911,  when  a  slight  reduction  of  £23,000  occurred. 

Many  tests  may  be  applied  to  these  local  rates  and 
taxes,  and  all  of  them  will  furnish  proof  of  exceptional 
hardship.  They  may  be  measured  against  the  aggregate 
amount  of  railway  capital  in  the  United  Kingdom,  namely, 
1,401  miUions  sterling  at  the  end  of  1911.  It  takes 
fourteen  miUions  to  pay  one  per  cent,  on  that  amount, 
but  rates  and  taxes  aggregating  £5,079,000  intercept 
nearly  one-half  of  it.  If  we  set  aside  the  Loan  and 
Debenture  stock  (£357,109,000)  there  will  be  1,044  millions 
of  Ordinary  and  Preference  stock,  on  which  £5,079,000 
of  rates  and  taxes  will  be  exactly  one-half  per  cent.  If, 
again,  we  exclude  the  Preference  stocks  and  deal  only 
with  the  Ordinary,  which  amounts  to  4  93  J  milhons,  the 
rates  and  taxes  will  average  more  than  one  per  cent. 

This  is  perhaps  as  simple  and  concise  an  illustration  of 
the  subject  as  can  be  offered  to  Ordinary  shareholders. 
Rates  and  taxes  represent  fuUy  one  per  cent,  of  dividend, 
which  is  diverted  from  their  pockets  to  those  of  the 
local  authorities.  To  be  exact,  a  small  part  of  it  passes 
to  the  Inland  Revenue  in  passenger  duty,  but  apart 
from  that  the  local  authorities  are  the  chief  receivers. 
The  fact  to  be  impressed  on  railway  shareholders  is  that 
before  a  penny  of  Ordinary  dividend  can  be  paid,  one 
per  cent,  will  have  been  "  municipalised."  To  a  large 
extent  this  is  simply  an  extra  income-tax.  The  railways 
generally  benefit  less  than  any  other  class  of  ratepayers 
by  the  local  expenditures  to  which  they  have  to  be  chief 
contributors.  A  large  portion  of  the  rates  that  are  spent 
on  highways,  for  instance,  may  injure  instead  of  benefiting 
them  by  fostering  competition  on  the  part  of  road  vehicles. 


TO  THE  LOCAL  AUTHORITIES  291 

"  Rates  and  taxes  "  in  the  broad  sense  ought  to  include 
the  income-tax  payable  by  Debenture  holders  on  their 
interest  and  stock-holders  on  their  dividends.  If  we  do 
this  we  shall  get  a  total  of  nearly  eight  millions  sterling 
which  the  railways  have  to  pay  out  of  net  receipts  amount- 
ing to  barely  48|  millions.  The  apostles  of  confiscation  may 
be  shocked  when  they  run  up  against  discoveries  of  this 
sort,  showing  that  other  fiscal  locusts  have  been  there 
before  them,  and  have  eaten  a  big  slice  of  the  railway 
cake.  Of  the  modest  residue  that  remains  after  Deben- 
ture interest  and  Preference  dividends  have  been  paid, 
one-fourth  is  annexed  for  rates  and  taxes,  and  the  Ordi- 
nary shareholder  has  to  be  thankful  for  the  remaining 
three-fourths. 

So  far  we  have  been  regarding  local  rates  and  taxes 
as  a  tax  on  capital.  A  tax  of  one  per  cent.,  or  even 
of  a  half  per  cent.,  on  capital  is  all  the  world  over  con- 
sidered a  heavy  burden.  But  the  Ordinary  stock  of 
British  railways  has  to  pay  in  one  form  or  another  IJ 
per  cent,  of  taxation.  It  is  first  mulcted  of  £5,079,000 
in  local  rates,  and  then  of  a  round  million  in  income-tax. 
That  makes  £6,079,000  on  a  nominal  capital  of  £493 
millions,  equal,  as  already  said,  to  IJ  per  cent.  After 
which  the  railway  shareholder  will  still  have  his  own 
private  rates  to  pay.  He,  in  fact,  never  knows  when  he 
is  done  with  the  rate  collector.  Corporately  or  personally 
he  is  always  being  taxed  and  rated. 

On  the  very  narrow  margin  of  dividend  which  he 
enjoys — say  3 J  per  cent. — such  taxation  is  a  much  more 
serious  matter  than  it  would  be  on  the  much  higher 
yields  of  industrial  securities.  Perhaps  IJ  per  cent,  on 
capital,  heavy  as  it  looks,  would  not  be  intolerable  if 
associated  with  a  6  or  7  per  cent,  dividend,  but  when 
levied  on  3 J  per  cent,  dividends  it  becomes  oppressive. 
Nor  as  time  goes  on  is  it  likely  to  improve  in  that  respect. 
With  the  evolution  of  the  new  land  taxes  it  threatens  to 
become  destructive.  But  there  is  a  point  beyond  which 
it  will  begin  to  pinch  other  railway  interests  than  those 
of  the  shareholders. 

Over  five  miUions  a  year  of  rates  and  taxes  may  prove  a 


292  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

serious  matter,  not  merely  from  the  dividend  point  of 
view,  but  from  the  wage  point  of  view  also.  It  is  a 
considerable  item  of  expenditure  whichever  way  we  look 
at  it.  An  engine-driver  might  stare  a  little  if  he  were 
told  that  railway  rates  and  taxes  nearly  equal  the  loco- 
motive wage  bill  of  our  whole  railway  system.  The 
difference  between  the  two  totals  is  only  £607,000 — rates 
and  taxes  having  amounted  in  1911  to  £5,079,000,  and 
the  "  working  of  engines  "  having  cost  £5,686,000.  The 
latter  sum  did  not,  however,  include  repairs  and  renewals, 
which  form  a  separate  item  of  £2,476,000. 

Another  coincidence  of  the  same  sort  may  interest  the 
coal-miners.  The  total  expenditure  of  all  the  British — 
and  Irish — railways  on  coal  and  coke  in  1911  did  not 
much  exceed  the  aggregate  of  their  rates  and  taxes.  It 
was  £5,661,000  as  compared  with  £5,079,000.  It  may 
further  interest  locomotive  men  and  coal-miners  to  learn 
that  rates  and  taxes  are  increasing  a  good  deal  faster  than 
the  coal  bills  or  the  locomotive  pay  sheets.  They  have 
risen  from  £4,228,000  in  1902  to  £5,079,000  in  1911  (in 
1910  they  were  £5,102,000),  an  increase  of  £851,000.  In 
the  same  period  the  coal  bill  advanced  from  £5,042,000  to 
£5,661,000,  or  £619,000,  and  the  locomotive  pay  sheets 
from  £5,251,000  to  £5,686,000. 

Of  the  three  locusts  the  rate  collector  appears  to  be  the 
most  voracious.  In  the  past  ten  years  he  has  increased 
his  levies  by  £851,000,  while  the  coal  contractor  has 
exacted  only  £619,000  more,  and  the  locomotive  men 
£435,000.  But  the  locomotive  men  are  fast  making  up 
for  their  overmodesty  in  the  past.  The  point  to  note 
is  how  relatively  large  an  item  rates  and  taxes  are  in 
railway  expenditure.  To  an  average  householder  they 
mean  a  fourth,  or  it  may  be  a  third  of  his  house  rent. 
This  may  be  only  a  twenty-fourth  part  of  his  total 
income,  while  to  an  Ordinary  shareholder  in  a  British 
railway  they  mean  a  fourth  of  his  whole  income  from 
dividends. 

It  is  not  in  rating  only  that  the  local  authorities  have 
been  bad  friends  to  the  railways.  They  have  penalised 
them  in  many  other  ways.     Often  they  seem  to  dehght 


TO  THE  LOCAL  AUTHORITIES  293 

in  putting  them  to  needless  trouble  and  expense.  They 
have  sometimes  approached  very  near  to  blackmailing 
them.  But  in  such  cases  the  would-be  biter  has  been 
generally  bit,  as  in  the  following  example.  A  go-ahead 
town  on  the  Bristol  Channel  had  in  its  neighbourhood  a 
small  watering  place  which  it  was  anxious  to  develop. 
It  was  served  by  two  trunk  railways,  one  of  which  thought 
to  pay  it  a  graceful  compliment  by  running  a  short  branch 
down  to  the  embryo  Brighton.  It  lodged  a  Bill  for  the 
purpose,  but  to  its  amazement  the  town  council  gave 
notice  of  opposition,  and  prepared  to  send  up  the  usual 
civic  deputation  to  exploit  the  Select  Committee  and  take 
in  a  few  outside  sights  as  well.  But  tliis  little  game  was 
nipped  in  the  bud  by  the  prompt  withdrawal  of  the  Bill, 
to  the  great  chagrin  of  its  sham  opponents. 

It  is  now  quite  understood  by  the  promoters  of  new 
railway  schemes  that  they  may  expect  to  see  every  town 
council  and  district  council  on  the  route  mustered  in  the 
Committee  room  against  them.  They  make  such  a 
formidable  show  that  they  generally  succeed  in  their 
opposition,  sometimes  to  the  public  advantage  and  some- 
times the  reverse.  But  whether  the  rejected  Bills  be  good 
or  bad,  this  method  of  sifting  them  is  as  irrational  as  it 
is  expensive.  It  becomes  idiotic  when  it  is  applied  to 
the  Bills  of  established  railway  companies  applying  for 
additional  powers.  These  may  be  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  carrying  on  of  their  business  as  well  as  for  the 
public  service,  but  the  modern  legislator  is  superior  to 
sentiments  of  that  sort.  He  has  more  practical  interests 
to  consider. 

He  may  be  a  Labour  member  sitting  for  a  trade  imionist 
constituency  which  has  declared  war  against  railway 
companies  as  the  enemies  of  labour.  Or  he  may  be  a 
faddist  who  wants  British  railway  rates  reduced  to  the 
American  level,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  American  rates 
are  for  haulage  only,  and  long  hauls  at  that.  Or  he  may 
be  an  anti-railway  man  of  the  municipal  sort  who  thinks 
that  Parliament  should  give  nothing  for  nothing  except 
to  municipal  philanthropists  and  housing  reformers. 
These    gentlemen  have   been  costly  legislators  for  the 


294  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

railways.  They  have  obliged  them  to  spend  millions  on 
re -housing  schemes  and  on  street  improvements  which 
invariably  ended  in  a  flagrant  waste  of  money  that  could 
be  ill  spared. 

It  is,  of  course,  in  the  metropolitan  area  that  the 
railways  have  been  worst  victimised  in  this  respect.  All 
the  principal  London  termini  have  had  to  pay  toll  to  the 
municipal  dictators,  and  one  company,  the  Great  Eastern, 
was  so  badly  fleeced  by  them  that  it  has  never  got  over 
it.  Liverpool  Street  Station  is  a  monument  of  municipal 
greed  and  railway  penalisation .  All  the  municipal  faddists 
seemed  to  gather  together  and  descend  on  its  devoted 
head.  The  worst  of  them  were  the  re-housing  reformer 
and  the  advocate  of  workmen's  cheap  trains.  The  Great 
Eastern  company  was  caught  in  both  these  municipal 
crazes,  and  its  sad  experiences  are  duly  recorded  in  a 
variety  of  parliamentary  records.  Mr.  Gooday,  the  then 
General  Manager,  in  giving  evidence  years  after,  before 
the  London  Traffic  Commission,  thus  described  the  bad 
bargain  made  with  Parliament  in  1864 — 

"  When  we  were  seeking  powers  to  construct  our 
Metropolitan  new  lines,  we  had  imposed  upon  us  by  the 
Great  Eastern  Railway  (Metropolitan  Station  and  Railway) 
Act  of  1864  an  obligation  to  carry  workmen  at  2d.  fares 
for  the  return  journey  from  Edmonton,  distant  llf  miles 
from  London,  and  Walthamstow,  distant  seven  miles, 
from  London.  In  return  for  that  we  were  excused  from 
certain  obligations  with  regard  to  re-housing  the  working 
classes  we  displaced.  In  those  days  we  were  anxious  not 
to  incur  a  large  capital  expenditure  in  re-housing  these 
workmen,  and  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  obligations 
were  accepted  by  the  company." 

Though  the  Great  Eastern  fared  worst,  it  was  not 
alone  in  playing  a  losing  game  with  the  municipal 
philanthropists.  Other  metropolitan  railways  also  saw 
visions  of  wealth  and  ever-increasing  dividends  in  the 
new  surburban  traffic,  and  burnt  their  fingers  over 
it.  They  gladly  allowed  themselves  to  be  saddled 
with  workmen's  trains,  cheap  trains,  and  every  other 
"  deadhead  "  privilege  that  the  parliamentary  Samaritans 


TO  THE  LOCAL  AUTHORITIES  295 

could  think  of.  In  many  cases  the  suburban  traffic  was 
so  handicapped  from  the  start  that  it  never  had  much 
of  a  chance  to  make  money  or  even  to  pay  its  way. 
What  with  the  longer  trains,  the  extra  carriages  needed 
to  meet  the  morning  and  evening  rush  of  traffic,  and  the 
sidings  that  had  to  be  provided  for  carriages  out  of  use 
during  the  day,  it  is  doubtful  if  the  cheap  suburban  fares 
could  ever  have  paid. 

Of  all  the  failures  among  London  railways,  and  they 
are  not  a  few,  the  most  wasteful  and  disastrous  are  the 
suburban  schemes  which  were  thus  hatched  by  a  long 
course  of  haggling  between  parliamentary  mimicipal  and 
railway  negotiatiors.  The  popular  train  service  which 
it  introduced  was  the  most  prodigal  that  could  have  been 
devised,  both  as  regards  stations  and  rolling  stock.  Being 
a  purely  morning  and  night  service,  it  was  in  full  use 
for  only  a  few  hours  daily.  The  rest  of  the  twenty-four 
hours  the  trains  were  eating  their  heads  ofiE  in  expensive 
sidings. 

"  A  third-class  workmen's  train,"  said  Mr.  Gooday, 
"  runs  47 i  miles  a  day ;  an  ordinary  workmen's  train  runs 
68|  miles.  The  reason  is  that  during  the  other  periods 
of  the  day  when  the  trains  are  not  fiDed  with  workmen, 
we  must  have  first  and  second  class  carriages  on  them. 
The  ordinary  trains  running  morning  and  evening  only 
run  73  miles,  and  the  ordinary  trains  running  all  day 
run  as  much  as  269  miles.  The  capital  expended  in 
providing  sidings  for  the  trains  during  the  time  they  are 
idle  ought  also  to  be  taken  into  consideration,  although 
it  is  impossible  to  estimate  exactly  how  much  should  be 
attributed  to  this  particular  traffic." 

According  to  Mr.  Gooday,  who  appears  to  have  worked 
out  the  problem  thoroughly,  the  new  suburban  lines 
were  too  heavily  handicapped  from  the  beginning  ever 
to  have  had  a  chance  of  success.  Two  disadvantages  on 
which  he  lays  special  stress  are  the  large  number  of 
stations  required  in  consequence  of  their  being  so  close 
together,  and  the  disproportionate  expense  of  staffing 
and  maintaining  them.  The  local  rates  alone  swallowed 
up  a  large  percentage  of    their  earnings  and  it  is  not 


296  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

surprising  to  learn  that  when  the  traffic  fell  off  some  of 
them  had  to  be  closed. 

The  cost  of  working  the  cheap  trains  rmming  out  from 
Liverpool  Street  on  being  most  carefully  calculated  was 
found  to  average  43* 76c?.  per  mile,  "taking  all  things 
into  consideration."  That  included  an  expenditure  of 
£110,000  in  lengthening  platforms  and  putting  on  extra 
coaches — seventeen  instead  of  the  usual  fifteen.  The 
re-housing  schemes  were  losing  concerns,  and  threw  a 
heavy  burden  on  the  rates,  a  large  part  of  which  recoiled 
on  the  railway  company.  Rates  rose  so  much  that  the 
better  class  of  residents  were  driven  away  from  the 
district,  and  again  the  railway  company  was  the  principal 
loser. 

It  might  have  been  thought  that  the  mimicipal  Sam- 
aritans after  doing  so  much  harm  to  the  railways  might 
have  relented  toward  them,  and  even  have  felt  some  pity 
for  them.  But  there  has  been  no  relenting.  On  the 
contrary,  there  has  been  continuous  hardening  of  heart. 
The  railway  companies  appear  to  have  more  parliamentary 
and  municipal  enemies  now  than  they  ever  had  before. 
Every  railway  Bill  of  any  consequence  introduced  into 
the  House  of  Commons  calls  out  swarms  of  them.  The 
railway  companies,  brewers  and  State  Churches  have 
become  a  trio  of  political  Ishmaelites. 

To-day  the  trader,  the  trade  unionist,  the  municipaliser, 
the  nationaliser,  and  the  politician  at  large  are  all  out 
against  the  railway  shareholder.  He  is  even  more  at 
their  mercy  than  the  land-owner.  They  can  only  tax  the 
land  or  confiscate  it  openly,  but  they  can  get  at  a  railway 
in  a  score  of  side  ways.  They  can  saddle  it  with  so-called 
Conciliation  Boards.  They  can  compel  it  to  run  work- 
men's trains  at  a  loss.  They  can  blackmail  every  Bill  it 
introduces  into  Parliament.  They  can  keep  up  a  perpetual 
outer V  for  increased  facilities,  comforts,  and  luxuries  in 
travelling,  all  of  them,  of  course,  to  be  free.  Just  now 
it  is  the  municipal  philanthropist  who  is  most  in  evidence 
against  the  railways.  A  few  years  ago  the  London 
County  Council  presented  a  modest  request  to  the  Railway 
Commissioners  for  an  extension  of  the  "  ten  miles  for  a 


TO  THE  LOCAL  AUTHORITIES  297 

penny  "  scale  of  passenger  fares.  This  was  another  nasty 
hit  at  the  Great  Eastern,  the  railway  which  in  the  past 
has  suffered  most  from  the  cheap  train  craze  of  our 
parliamentary  and  municipal  Samaritans.  The  Ck)unty 
Cotmcil  coolly  went  outside  of  its  own  territory  to  attack 
a  rival  in  the  transportation  business.  It  asked  to  have 
the  Great  Eastern  Railway  compelled  to  carry  passengers 
in  a  district  outside  of  the  Coimcilarea  at  rates  lower  than 
the  Council  was  charging  on  its  own  tramways,  low  as 
most  of  these  are. 

This  was  surely  a  reductio  ad  absurdum  of  municipal 
fussiness.  The  attempt  failed  as  it  deserved,  and  now 
that  the  London  County  Council  is  itself  bearing  the 
brunt  of  unfair  competition  it  may  be  able  to  feel  more 
sympathy  with  neighbours  in  a  similar  plight.  At  all 
events  the  motor-omnibus  seems  to  have  had  somewhat 
of  a  sobering  influence  on  our  municipal  busybodies.  It 
is  some  time  since  they  launched  any  new  scheme  for 
penaUzing  the  railways.  Their  game  of  late  has  been 
obstructive  rather  than  destructive.  Town  Councils, 
County  Councils  and  District  Councils  find  a  bond  of 
union  in  indiscriminate  resistance  to  any  kind  of  railway 
invasion.  This  is  hard  on  the  promoters  of  such  schemes, 
who  sometimes  lose  hundreds  of  thousands  of  pounds  in 
unsuccessful  battles  in  Parliamentary  Committee  Rooms. 
But  for  the  railway  interest  as  a  whole  it  is  not  an  un- 
qualified misfortune.  It  heads  off  possible  competitors, 
and  strengthens  the  grip  of  existing  railways  on  their 
several  territories.  Not  many  years  hence  local  author- 
ities may  be  as  anxious  to  obtain  new  railways  as  they  have 
been  of  late  to  shut  them  out. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 

THE   RAILWAYS   AND   THE   STATE 

In  discussing  the  relations  of  any  great  industry  to 
the  State  the  first  danger  we  have  to  guard  against  is  the 
use  of  bogey  words  such  as  Socialisation  and  Nationalisa- 
tion. The  next  pitfall  to  avoid  is  the  very  common 
assumption  that  questions  of  this  kind  are  to  be  settled 
by  theoretical  or  ideal  methods.  The  theorist  may  be 
very  useful  in  thinking  out  general  principles,  but  in  the 
thick  of  an  industrial  conflict  he  does  not  count  for 
much.  Real  conflicts  have  real  issues  behind  them. 
They  are  fought  out  by  real  men  with  human  tempers. 
When  their  blood  is  up  they  have  little  thought  to  spare 
for  principles  or  ideals.  When  they  have  finished  their 
fight  they  make  peace  on  the  best  terms  they  can,  which 
as  a  rule  will  be  based  on  actual  circumstances  of  time 
and  place. 

A  large  majority  of  industrial  disputes  spring  from 
local  causes,  and  latterly  many  have  been  of  personal 
origin.  Driver  Knox  and  Guard  Richardson  were  for  a 
brief  week  or  two  shibboleths  in  the  mouths  of  two  or 
three  hundred  thousand  railway  men.  But  though  on 
the  surface  the  quarrel  over  them  was  personal,  under- 
Ijdng  it  there  were  several  vital  issues, — ^the  safety  of  the 
public,  the  disciphne  of  the  railway  service,  the  right 
and  duty  of  the  State  to  intervene,  and  the  best  form  of 
intervention.  This  last  was  the  most  difficult  as  well  as 
the  most  critical  question  of  all.  State  control  has,  from 
the  dawn  of  our  railway  history,  been  one  of  its  essential 
factors.  It  was  not  directly  asserted  imtil  a  compara- 
tively late  period,  and  it  was  longer  still  in  being  recog- 
nised by  the  railway  companies.     But  it  has  been  in 


THE  RAILWAYS  AND  THE  STATE        299 

actual  operation  for  many  years  and  every  fresh  trouble 
in  the  railway  w^orld  tends  to  strengthen  it. 

Therefore  it  is  too  late  to  argue  about  the  abstract 
merits  of  State  control  and  State  intervention.  The 
thing  exists  and  has  existed  for  years  under  various  names. 
Each  generation  has  found  a  new  name  for  it,  to  express 
the  latest  advance  in  its  development.  At  first  it  was 
simply  a  general  right  of  supervision  over  the  railways 
as  necessary  monopolies.  Next  it  intervened  on  behalf 
of  public  safety.  Then  it  took  the  railway  shareholders 
under  its  protection,  after  them  the  traders,  and  finally 
the  working  staff. 

The  State  is  now  a  universal  providence  for  all  the 
varied  interests  affected  by  railways.  To  this  extent — 
and  it  goes  much  farther  than  most  people  suspect — our 
railways  are  already  nationalised.  If  we  could  imagine 
a  Nationalisation  Bill  being  suddenly  rushed  through 
ParHament  and  put  in  operation  at  once  we  might  be 
astonished  at  the  very  small  difference  it  would  make 
to  most  of  the  people  who  had  looked  forward  to  it  as  the 
opening  of  a  new  era.  By  the  time  that  its  eagerly 
anticipated  advantages  had  been  realised  and  shared  out 
the  individual  quotas  would  have  shrunk  to  very  small 
dimensions.  Then  there  would  be  a  debit  side  of  the 
account  to  set  off  against  the  credit  side.  Unfortunately 
in  a  social  rearangement  no  person  or  class  can  be  bene- 
fited except  at  the  expense  of  another  person  or  class. 
Where,  as  in  this  case  no  new  wealth  is  created,  redistri- 
bution might  be  a  mere  game  of  "  general  post." 

It  is  not  this  clumsy  sort  of  nationalisation  that  railway 
shareholders  need  concern  themselves  much  about. 
What  they  have  to  look  out  for  is  the  kind  in  actual 
operation  and  being  gradually  extended :  the  State 
control  which  step  by  step  is  spreading  itself  over  our 
whole  industrial  and  economic  system.  Public  health, 
education,  production,  and  transportation  are  all  being 
nationahsed  in  the  sense  that  they  are  being  treated  as 
national  interests.  National  ownership  could  only  be 
at  best  a  step  farther  in  the  same  direction,  and  at  worst 
it  might  be  a  long  step  backward. 


300  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

State  control,  which  is  at  present  a  very  haphazard 
hand-to-mouth  arrangement,  may  develop  into  a  scientific 
form  of  national  control,  though  as  yet  there  is  very  little 
indication  of  it.  In  any  case  there  will  be  no  brand  new 
social  system.  The  future  will  have  to  be  evolved  from 
the  present,  as  the  present  has  been  evolved  from  the 
past.  The  practical  question  of  the  day,  therefore,  is 
not  how  to  transform  the  existing  system  of  privately 
owned  but  State  controlled  railways  into  an  ideal  system 
of  State  owned  and  State  controlled  railways.  It  is 
how  to  get  the  best  possible  results  out  of  the  existing 
arrangement.  No  one  pretends  that  it  is  perfect.  Both 
the  State  control  and  the  private  ownership  are  sus- 
ceptible of  great  improvement.  Neither  of  them  is  well 
organised  and  self -consistent. 

A  State  control  which  is  exercised  sometimes  by  the 
Cabinet,  sometimes  by  a  Cabinet  Minister,  sometimes  by 
the  House  of  Commons,  and  sometimes  by  a  Government 
Department,  can  hardly  be  expected  to  produce  ideal 
results.  Theories  and  doctrines  apart,  the  public  interest 
demands  that  the  existing  machinery  should  be  got  into 
working  order,  that  its  obvious  defects  should  be  cured 
and  its  causes  of  friction  removed.  First  of  all  we  need 
a  properly  constituted  State  authority  capable  of  exer- 
cising an  intelligent,  impartial  and  judicious  control. 
In  other  words  it  must  be  a  non -political  control,  inde- 
pendent alike  of  Ministerial  majorities,  trade  imion 
threats  and  outside  dictation  of  every  sort  or  kind. 

Such  a  properly  constituted  authority  ought  to  have 
a  proper  ethical  code  to  work  upon.  Certain  funda- 
mental principles  would  have  to  be  laid  down  before- 
hand for  its  guidance.  The  railway  companies,  the 
traders  and  the  trade  unionists  would  have  to  agree 
among  themselves  whether  or  not  private  property  in 
railways  was  to  continue  to  be  recognised.  It  would  be 
a  mockery  of  law  and  justice  to  compel  any  one  to  submit 
to  a  tribunal  which  did  not  recognise  the  plainest  prin- 
ciples of  social  law  and  order  as  hitherto  understood. 

If  it  is  social  chaos  and  disorder  that  the  trade  imionists 
want   they   should  go  for  them   by  the  shortest  and 


THE  RAILWAYS  AND  THE  STATE       301 

most  direct  route  so  that  the  issue  may  be  settled  as 
speedily  and  thoroughly  as  possible.  They  camiot  have 
State  control  and  anarchy  at  the  same  time.  State 
control  means  justice,  fair  play  and  equal  treatment  for 
both  sides.  To  such  a  tribunal  neither  the  honest 
capitalist  nor  the  honest  employer  need  fear  to  submit 
himself.  But  no  capitalist  or  employer  can  be  forced  to 
subject  himself  permanently  to  tribunals  of  the  opposite 
sort.  Individuals  may  be  dishonest,  whole  classes  of 
society  may  be  dishonest,  but  no  State  can  afford  to  be 
utterly  dishonest.  If  it  were  it  would  be  denying  its 
own  moral  authority  and  its  right  to  govern. 

In  order  to  govern  efficiently  the  State  must  be  a  power 
of  itself  :  something  above  and  beyond  the  governed.  It 
should  be  as  little  as  possible  at  their  mercy  or  under  their 
control.  In  trade  disputes  it  should  not  be  bottle-holder 
to  either  side.  When  it  intervenes  it  should  be  on 
behalf  of  the  public  as  such  and  not  in  the  interest  of 
either  labour  or  capital.  This  would  be  the  true  demo- 
cratic doctrine,  and  already  some  democratic  States  are 
acting  upon  it.  In  the  gas-workers'  strike  at  Sydney  in 
February  1913  the  public  authorities,  both  national  and 
municipal,  acted  upon  it  and  all  did  their  duty,  con- 
sequently short  work  was  made  of  the  strike,  and  the  right 
of  the  public  to  be  protected  against  anarchy  from 
whatever  quarter  was  triumphantly  vindicated. 

The  Sydney  gas-workers'  strike  was  a  much-needed 
encouragement  for  British  railway  directors  and  share- 
holders to  stand  firm  against  threats  of  anarchy  and 
public  misery.  The  Minister  of  Labour  and  Industry 
having  made  reasonable  proposals  for  a  settlement, 
and  the  strikers  having  rejected  them,  he  decided  to 
guarantee  protection  to  free  labour.  At  the  same  time 
the  Lord  Mayor  appealed  for  volunteers  to  help  the  gas 
companies  to  maintain  the  necessary  supply  of  gas. 
Even  the  Executive  of  the  Labour  Council  joined  in  and 
asked  unionists  not  to  join  the  strikers.  In  a  very  short 
time  sufficient  labour  was  got  to  carry  on  the  works. 

This  remarkable  strike  wound  up  with  an  incident 
which  was  the  strangest  of  all.     The  Prime   Minister 


302  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

issued  a  public  explanation  of  the  conduct  of  the  Govern- 
ment in  which  he  stated  that  "  the  strike  issue  is  not  now 
between  the  gas  companies  and  the  men.  The  Govern- 
ment has  intervened  on  behalf  of  the  public  and  is  standing 
for  the  principle  of  arbitration  which  is  the  policy  of  the 
State  endorsed  by  the  Labour  Party."  Here  we  have 
the  true  doctrine  of  State  control  laid  down  and  practically 
illustrated.  It  is  an  absolute  negation  of  the  national 
strike  shibboleth  which  is  so  quickly  shouted  by  the 
hotheads  of  the  colliery  and  railway  unions  the  moment 
that  anybody  treads  on  their  toes. 

When  we  happen  to  have  a  Government  in  this  coimtry 
with  sufficient  courage  and  sense  of  fairness  to  follow  the 
good  example  set  at  Sydney  in  February  last  there  will 
be  little  danger  of  any  more  national  strikes.  The  very 
thought  of  such  an  outrage  will  be  banished  from  the 
mind  of  the  most  irresponsible  labour  leader.  This  is 
one  way  of  nationalising  the  railways  which  we  do  not 
need  to  wait  for,  much  less  to  dream  of  as  a  future  paradise. 
It  may  be  realised  at  once  if  the  trade  unionists  will  only 
recognise  that  they  are  not  the  State  :  that  it  is  something 
above  even  them,  and  that  labour  as  well  as  capital  is  in 
the  long  run  subject  to  it. 

When  railway  men  or  any  other  class  of  workers  resort 
to  anarchy  they  change  the  trade  union  issue  into  a 
national  one.  As  the  Prime  Minister  of  New  South  Wales 
put  it  the  question  is  no  longer  between  employers  and 
employed,  but  between  the  Government  and  the  enemies 
of  society,  who,  as  such,  must  also  be  enemies  of  the  State. 
This  thoroughgoing  democratic  doctrine  would  of  course 
demand  sacrifices  from  both  sides,  but  in  the  long  run 
they  would  be  worth  their  price.  To  be  relieved  once 
for  all  from  the  barbarous  threats  of  national  strikes 
would  compensate  employers  for  liberal  advances  in 
wages,  which  again  might  console  the  workers  for  giving 
up  the  right  to  inflict  the  largest  possible  amount  of 
harm  upon  their  fellow  creatures. 

A  State  armed  with  the  power  to  arbitrate  between 
employers  and  employed  as  to  wages  and  conditions  of 
labour  would  as  far  as  industrial  questions  are  concerned 


THE  RAILWAYS  AND  THE  STATE        303 

be  a  virtual  dictator.  There  may  be  danger  of  such 
power  being  abused,  but  apparently  that  risk  must  be 
faced.  The  only  alternative  is  a  stiU  worse  dictatorship, 
that  of  the  trade  unions.  Precautions  can  of  course 
be  taken  against  abuse.  The  State  should  not  exercise 
its  power  of  arbitration  through  any  poUtical  agency, 
but  through  a  specially  constituted  tribunal  of  the 
highest  character  and  capacity. 

This  tribunal  should  combine  the  authority  of  the 
Cabinet  and  the  House  of  Commons  with  the  professional 
qualifications  of  the  Railway  Commissioners  and  the 
Board  of  Trade.  Its  decisions  should  be  such  as  the 
whole  country  would  accept  with  confidence,  and  to 
which  pubhc  opinion  would  enforce  obedience  on  both 
sides.  It  should  be  a  body  able  in  its  own  sphere  to 
speak  for  the  nation  and  thus  to  give  us  the  kind  of 
nationalisation  most  urgently  needed  in  the  railway  service 
as  in  several  others. 

As  regards  nationahsing  the  railways  the  writer  has 
long  contended  that  it  is  not  the  shareholders  but  the 
railway  men  who  are  the  greatest  obstacles  to  it,  because 
they  are  least  willing  to  make  sacrifices  for  it.  It  has 
been  said  over  and  over  again  at  railway  meetings  that 
any  honest  scheme  of  expropriation  would  be  favourably 
considered.  Even  among  railway  managers  there  is  no 
strong  prejudice  in  favour  of  the  existing  system.  The 
fact  of  their  being  all  believers  in  amalgamation  and 
consolidation  shows  that  they  are  already  well  on  the 
road  to  nationalising.  One  distinguished  manager  who 
died  a  few  years  ago  was  an  avowed  nationaliser.  He  did 
not  consider  that  on  fair  and  equal  terms  national  owner- 
ship could  beat  private  ownership,  but  he  held  that 
hampered  and  handbound  as  private  management  is 
now-a-days  it  cannot  do  justice  to  itself.  This  argument 
grows  stronger  year  by  year,  and  it  is  evidently  ap- 
proaching its  climax  in  these  days  of  dictatorial  guards 
and  drivers. 

State  control  is  no  new  idea  among  British  railways. 
It  laid  hold  of  them  in  their  infancy,  and  ever  since  it  has 
been  tightening  its  grip  on  them.     At  first  it  was  exercised 


304  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

in  a  mild  and  inoffensive  way  by  a  specially  created  body — 
the  Railway  Department  of  the  Board  of  Trade.  This 
was  intended  simply  for  purposes  of  observation  and 
statistical  information.  The  Select  Committee  of  1838 
which  recommended  its  appointment  offered  the  naive 
reason  that  the  railways  had  acquired  a  greater  monopoly 
of  transportation  than  had  been  foreseen  when  the  original 
Acts  of  Parliament  were  granted,  and  would  now  require 
to  be  better  looked  after  than  ordinary  carriers.  They 
must  be  treated,  in  short,  as  monopolists.  The  following 
clauses  in  the  report  of  the  Select  Committee  indicates 
the  sort  of  supervision  that  was  deemed  necessary.  In 
its  vague  and  harmless  suggestions  it  contrasts  strongly 
with  the  Board  of  Trade  activity  we  now  see  around 
us. 

I.  That  railway  companies  using  locomotive  power 
possess  a  practical  monopoly  for  the  conveyance  of 
passengers  on  their  several  lines  of  railway,  and  that 
under  existing  circumstances  this  monopoly  is  inseparable 
from  the  nature  of  these  establishments  and  from  the 
conduct  of  their  business  with  due  regard  to  the  nature 
of  their  business. 

II.  That  this  monopoly  is  the  result  of  circumstances 
contemplated  neither  by  the  Legislature  nor  by  the 
Companies  themselves,  the  extensive  powers  contained 
in  their  Acts  of  Parliament  having  been  obtained  under 
the  impression  that  the  interests  of  the  public  were 
sufficiently  secured  by  fixing  a  maximum  rate  of  tolls, 
and  providing  for  free  competition  in  the  supply  of 
locomotive  power  and  other  means  of  conveyance. 

III.  That  under  these  circumstances  the  Legislature 
is  bound  to  provide  that  the  public  interests  shall  not 
suffer  from  the  mistaken  view  taken  in  the  infancy  of 
the  science  of  locomotion,  and  that  for  this  purpose  the 
powerful  monopoly  under  which  a  large  and  increasing 
portion  of  the  national  commerce  of  the  country  is 
placed  should  be  subjected  to  the  supervision  and  control 
of  the  Board  of  Trade. 

IV.  That  as  an  important  part  of  this  duty  the  Board 
of  Trade  should  collect  and  register  statistical  information 


THE  RAILWAYS  AND  THE  STATE        305 

on   all   points   of   general   interest  connected  with   the 
railway  system. 

By  degrees,  as  the  statutory  powers  of  the  new  Depart- 
ment were  enlarged  and  extended  it  became  more  aggres- 
sive. In  1885  it  was  no  longer  content  to  be  a  mere 
collector  and  publisher  of  statistics.  It  aspired  to  take 
a  hand  in  the  war  of  rates  which  then  broke  out  between 
the  traders  and  the  railway  companies.  A  Government 
Bill  was  introduced  which  would  have  given  it  power  to 
make  and  change  rates  at  its  discretion,  subject  only  to 
the  veto  of  Parliament.  The  railway  companies  succeeded 
in  defeating  that  attack,  but  it  was  only  a  brief  respite 
they  obtained.  Mr.  Grierson's  account  of  the  Bill 
shows  that  even  thirty  years  ago  the  anti-railway  move- 
ment was  well  advanced,  almost  as  far,  indeed,  as  it  is 
to-day — 

"  Last  session  (1886)  the  Board  of  Trade  introduced  a 
Bill  not  only  to  compel  the  railway  companies  to  do  what 
they  by  their  Bills  introduced  in  the  session  of  1885 
sought  to  do  but  also  to  make  it  obligatory  on  them  to 
accept  such  altered  rates  and  tolls  as  the  Board  of  Trade 
with  the  subsequent  sanction  of  Parliament  might  lay 
down,  and  to  submit  to  periodical  revisions  thereof — 
requirements  so  contrary  to  the  conditions  under  which 
the  companies  provided  the  capital  for  the  construction 
of  the  railways  that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the 
effects  of  the  provisions  of  the  Bill  could  have  been 
clearly  understood." 

The  feud  between  the  traders  and  the  railways  died 
down  after  1889  and  by  1894  it  had  been  compromised. 
The  new  classifications  and  schedule  of  rates  then  agreed 
upon  have  been  in  force  for  nearly  twenty  years,  but 
they  are  now  showing  signs  of  wear.  No  sooner,  however, 
had  the  traders  been  pacified  than  the  trade  imions  took 
the  field  and  the  railway  managers  have  since  gone 
through  more  worry  over  wages  than  they  had  to  suffer 
before  over  rates.  Between  the  two  the  Railway  Depart- 
ment of  the  Board  of  Trade  has  been  kept  busy  right 
along.  It  is  being  appealed  to  almost  daily  by  railway 
companies,  public  bodies,  private  traders  and  employees. 


306  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

If  it  could  promptly  and  definitely  settle  one-third  of  the 
questions  submitted  to  it  it  might  be  a  fair  substitute  for 
the  efi&cient  State  control  which  we  are  advocating.  But 
as  regards  rates  and  wages  its  powers  are  for  the  most 
part  only  advisory. 

The  crux  of  the  matter  is — Can  a  bona  fide  effective 
State  control  be  created  either  out  of  the  existing 
Railway  Department  of  the  Board  of  Trade  or  out  of  the 
Railway  Commission  or  by  some  new  combination  ? 
This  is  the  practical  question  of  the  day  and  it  is  also  the 
real  question  of  the  future.  It  is  the  socialist  question 
as  well  as  the  trade  unionist  question.  Even  if  the 
railways  were  to  be  confiscated  they  would  still  have  to 
be  operated.  The  same  quantity  of  traffic  would  have 
to  be  carried  if  the  men  were  to  earn  the  same  amount  of 
wages.  There  would  have  to  be  discipline  of  some  kind 
if  the  whole  service  were  not  to  go  to  pieces.  The  con- 
fiscated part  of  the  net  revenue  would  have  to  be  divided 
up  among  perhaps  ten  times  as  many  claimants  as  the 
number  of  its  dispossessed  owners.  Thus  the  issue 
would  return  in  a  vicious  circle  to  a  question  of  State 
control — ^the  only  practical  form  of  nationalisation. 

It  may  be  that  the  conflicting  forces  which  are  now 
shaking  our  railway  system  almost  to  its  foundation  are 
unconsciously  working  towards  a  common  end.  By 
different  and  apparently  opposite  paths  they  may  be 
advancing  toward  some  kind  of  State  control  which  will 
do  justice  to  all  of  them,  and  in  which  they  can  all  have 
confidence.  The  more  thoughtful  of  the  unionist  leaders 
apparently  begin  to  see  that  something  of  this  sort 
would  be  the  most  rational  form  of  compromise.  In 
giving  evidence  before  the  Departmental  Committee  of 
the  Board  of  Trade  on  Railway  Agreements  they  indi- 
cated as  much.  The  most  outspoken  of  them  was  the 
editor  of  the  Railway  Review,  Mr.  G.  J.  Wardle.  He 
quoted  with  approval  the  following  passage  from  the 
Statist — 

"  If  the  agreements  and  arrangements  are  to  be  sanc- 
tioned, as  we  trust  they  will  be,  it  will  be  absolutely 
necessary  to  create  as  a  portion  of  the  machinery  of 


THE  RAILWAYS  AND  THE  STATE        307 

Government  a  Board  of  Railway  Control,  to  protect  the 
nation's  interests,  and  to  see  that  the  agreements  and 
arrangements  make  for  the  public  welfare.  This  board 
should  consist  of  men  whose  ability  to  exercise  effec- 
tively the  important  duties  entrusted  to  them  would  be 
universally  recognised." 

Mr.  Wardle  even  went  so  far  as  to  acknowledge  the 
friendly  disposition  of  railway  shareholders  toward  reforms 
likely  to  be  for  the  common  good.  On  this  point  he  heartily 
endorsed  the  views  which  had  been  recently  expressed 
by  the  Chairman  of  the  Railway  Shareholders'  Associa- 
tion— 

"  Ordinary  shareholders  who  have  no  official  bias  can 
see  that  the  tendency  of  events  is  more  and  more  towards 
Government  supervision.  It  seems  to  them  wiser  to 
recognise  this  tendency  than  to  shut  their  eyes  to  it,  or 
to  fight  blindly  against  it.  The  Board  of  Trade  has 
become  much  too  powerful  a  factor  in  the  administration 
of  our  railways  to  be  got  rid  of,  even  if  that  were  desirable. 
The  only  possible  policy  now  is  for  all  concerned  to  make 
the  best  of  it  by  seeing  that  its  power  is  wisely  and 
justly  exercised.  That  can  be  best  done  by  each  of  the 
various  interests  entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  Board 
keeping  in  close  touch  with  it.  Whether  we  like  it  or 
not,  a  certain  amount  of  Government  intervention  has 
become  inevitable  in  every  important  dispute  arising 
between  the  owners  of  the  railways  and  the  large  classes 
of  the  community  dependent  on  them  for  their  livelihood ; 
whether  as  traders  or  as  workers." 

It  is  a  curious  fact  pointing  also  in  the  same  direction 
that  since  the  Knox  and  Richardson  disputes  the  National 
Union  of  Railwaymen  has  adopted  a  formal  resolution 
calling  on  the  Board  of  Trade  for  fuller  and  stricter 
enforcement  of  the  rules  and  regulations  for  the  safe 
working  of  the  railways.  So  far  good,  but  the  railway 
managers  on  their  side  wiU  have  to  see  to  it  that  the 
increased  official  control  thus  demanded  is  not  perverted 
into  an  instrument  for  obstructing  necessary  improvements 
and  economies  in  working  the  traffic.  That  is  above 
all  what  the  companies  have  to  fear  and  to  guard  against. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 

NATIONALISATION 

The  question  of  nationalising  railways  is  argued  on  so 
many  different  and  incompatible  grounds  that  the  various 
arguments  are  apt  to  clash.  If  we  consider  it  first  from 
a  commercial  standpoint  it  has  very  little  to  say  for 
itself.  If  we  regard  it  as  a  political  issue  it  at  once 
becomes  involved  in  the  discredit  and  disfavour  into 
which  political  methods  have  lately  fallen.  If  we  treat 
it  as  part  of  the  great  socialistic  movement,  it  will  be  like 
the  rest  of  that  movement,  a  waning  force.  But  there 
is  one,  and  only  one  point  of  view  from  which  it  is  really 
dangerous.  The  future  of  railways  generally,  and  British 
railways  in  particular,  depends  on  the  development  of 
trade  unionism.  If  the  latter  had  remained  on  its 
original  lines,  employers  and  employees  might  have 
continued  to  settle  questions  of  wages  in  a  friendly  give- 
and-take  spirit.  But  if  the  policy  of  class  war,  which 
has  of  late  been  adopted  by  the  unions,  is  to  be  carried 
to  the  bitter  end,  it  wiU  force  the  railway  companies  into 
an  impossible  position. 

A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,  much  less 
a  railway  system,  which  in  order  to  do  its  duty  efiiciently 
must  go  like  clockwork.  In  the  campaign  of  grumbling 
and  kicking,  which  has  been  started  by  the  railwaymen, 
a  point  may  soon  be  reached  at  which  authority  and 
responsibility  will  have  disappeared  together.  The 
railways  may  then  have  to  be  nationalised,  not  for  com- 
mercial or  political  or  socialist  reasons,  but  as  an  im- 
perative necessity.  The  only  way  to  save  them  from 
themselves  may  be  to  place  them  under  martial  law. 
This  is  the  sort  of  nationalisation  we  are  most  likely  to 
end  in,  and  the  people  who  will  like  it  least  are  the 
trade  unionists  who  are  now  shouting  most  lustily  for  it. 
When  the  nation  takes  them  in  hand  they  will  have  a 

308 


NATIONALISATION  309 

master  whom  they  dare  not  criticise  and  caricature  and 
vihfy  as  they  now  do  their  private  employers. 

It  is  not  railway  shareholders  who  have  to  fear  nation- 
alisation, unless  the  nationalisers  are  going  to  plunder 
them  completely.  Neither  is  it  the  railway  officials, 
whose  power  would  be  increased  tenfold  when  they 
became  national  functionaries.  If,  as  the  trade  unionists 
allege,  many  of  them  are  bumptious  and  overbearing, 
what  would  they  be  as  State  officials  without  any  Boa^ 
of  Directors  to  fear,  or  shareholders  to  consider  ?  A 
short  trip  on  a  Prussian  railway-r-all  of  which  are 
nationalised  and  State-owned — ^might  thoroughly  dis- 
abuse any  intelligent  English  railwa3rman  of  the  idea  that 
he  would  be  better  off  as  a  State  employee. 

Short  of  deliberate  spoliation,  which,  after  the  past 
six  or  seven  years'  experience  of  a  semi-socialist  regime, 
is  less  to  be  dreaded  than  it  was,  railway  shareholders 
have  less  to  fear  from  nationalisation  than  either  em- 
ployees or  traders.  It  could  not  possibly  do  them 
greater  harm  than  the  class  war  which  is  now  being 
systematically  waged  against  them.  This  has  shaken 
their  credit  more  than  anjrthing  that  ever  happened  to 
them  before.  It  has  reduced  the  market  values  of  their 
securities  far  below  the  level  at  which  their  returns  should 
be  capitalised.  It  is  hampering  their  operations  at 
every  point,  and  rendering  it  increasingly  difficult  to 
perform  their  responsible  duties  to  the  community. 

This  issue  will  by  and  by  become  so  serious  that  the 
community  itself  will  have  to  take  it  in  hand.  It  will 
pass  out  of  the  control  of  the  railway  companies,  and  the 
nation  will  have  to  decide  once  for  all  on  the  kind  of 
railway  administration  it  prefers.  If  it  desires  the 
present  system  to  continue,  it  will  have  to  devise  a  modus 
Vivendi  between  existing  employers  and  employees  on  the 
one  hand,  and  railway  users  on  the  other.  If  it  should 
decide  on  eliminating  private  employers  and  substituting 
State  ownership,  that  will  only  vary  the  problem  without 
solving  it.  It  will  have  got  rid  of  the  least  troublesome 
of  the  three  hostile  factors,  and  the  two  most  difficult  ones 
— ^the  traders  and  the  workers — will  remain. 

The  class  war  will  still  have  to  go  on.    Its  conditions 


310  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

will  only  have  changed  for  the  worse.  The  railway- 
workers  will  continue  to  think  only  of  their  own  class 
interests,  and  the  State  will  have  to  oppose  them  in  the 
pubUc  interest,  just  as  the  railway  companies  are  doing 
now.  The  question  is  whether  its  opposition  will  be 
weaker  or  stronger.  As  to  that  there  cannot  be  a  doubt. 
The  existence  of  a  modem  State  depends  on  organisation 
and  discipline.  It  has  to  choose  between  order  that  is 
life-giving,  and  disorder  that  is  self -destroying.  Already 
we  have  seen  enough  of  the  latter  to  be  able  to  judge  of 
its  future  prospects.  Day  by  day  we  are  getting  fresh 
proofs  of  the  great  truth  that  government  without  moral 
authority  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  But  there  can  be 
no  authoritative  government  while  whole  classes  of 
the  community — ^miners  and  railwaymen,  for  example — 
are  arrayed  against  it. 

In  the  ultimate  determination  of  a  vital  economic 
question  like  this  Parliaments  and  political  parties  count 
for  very  little.  They  are  only  flies  on  the  wheel,  and 
very  ephemeral  flies  at  that.  A  La  hour- ruled  House  of 
Commons  may  pass  Labour  laws  by  the  score,  but  it  will 
not  have  the  slightest  control  over  their  actual  results. 
They  are  quite  as  likely  to  work  the  wrong  way  as  the 
right  one.  The  most  triumphant  democracy  cannot  set 
aside,  much  less  conquer,  the  natural  laws  of  society. 
No  shuffling  of  political  cards  can  give  every  class  all  it 
would  like,  and  no  single  class  can  be  allowed  to  have  all 
its  own  way. 

Even  railway  shareholders  must  have  some  kind  of 
justice  meted  out  to  them,  or  the  community  as  a  whole 
will  suffer  along  with  them.  Supposing  that  they  were 
expropriated,  the  trader  and  the  railway  worker  would 
find  themselves  face  to  face  with  directly  and  absolutely 
opposed  interests.  They  would  be  worse  off  than  when 
the  railway  shareholder  acted  as  a  buffer  between  them. 
Just  now  he  is  not  a  mere  buffer.  He  is  a  sort  of  mediator 
and  balance-holder.  There  are  many  losing  rates  which 
have  to  be  made  good  out  of  his  scanty  dividends.  When 
he  becomes  a  simple  annuitant,  neither  trader  nor  worker 
will  have  any  further  claim  upon  him.  They  will  have 
to  fight  out  their  quarrels  themselves,  unless  the  Board  of 


NATIONALISATION  311 

Trade  or  some  other  public  department  cuts  them  short 
by  issuing  an  official  decree  which  neither  of  them  dare 
disobey. 

Under  a  regime  of  nationalised  railways  the  traders  and 
employees  would  be  natural  enemies.  Their  interests 
would  be  continually  clashing,  and  there  would  be  no 
intermediate  power  to  weaken  the  collision.  Freight 
rates  could  not  be  lowered  and  wages  raised  simul- 
taneously. They  would  have  to  take  turns,  and  the 
traders  and  workers  might  ifind  that  quite  as  difficult  a 
matter  to  arrange  as  a  new  scale  of  wages  under  the 
existing  regime.  The  only  source  from  which  the  two 
classes  might  derive  common  benefit  would  be  increased 
economy  and  efficiency  in  working,  but  that  involves 
conditions  to  which  railwaymen,  in  their  present  state  of 
mind,  would  not  be  likely  to  submit.  The  controllers  of 
the  traffic  would  require  to  have  a  free  hand  in  making 
experiments  to  reduce  the  cost  of  transportation — a 
privilege  which  is  now  being  rapidly  curtailed.  They 
should  also  be  free — which  they  have  not  been  of  late — to 
adopt  labour-saving  and  time-saving  methods. 

The  ideally-managed  railway  would  be  continually 
increasing  the  average  amount  of  transportation  per- 
formed per  head  of  its  working  staff.  Divested  of  labour, 
municipal  and  political  complications,  that  is  the  true  rail- 
way problem .  But  the  trade  unionists  cannot  face  it  in  that 
light,  because  it  is  at  complete  variance  with  their  policy. 
It  suits  traders  and  shareholders  because  the  more  efficient 
the  working  the  lower  the  freight  rates  and  the  higher  the 
dividends.  Between  these  two  there  is  no  irreconcilable 
contradiction,  but  between  labour  on  the  one  hand  and 
rates  and  dividends  on  the  other  there  is  an  impassable 
gulf.  The  trade-unionist  gospel  requires  the  largest  pos- 
sible number  of  men  to  be  employed  at  the  highest  possible 
wages,  and  for  the  shortest  possible  number  of  hours  per 
day.  This  is  the  antipodes  of  proper  railway  administra- 
tion, whether  national,  municipal  or  individual. 

The  reproach  most  frequently  flung  at  existing  railway 
managers  is  that,  notwithstanding  all  the  recent  advances 
in  wages,  more  work  is  done  for  less  money  than  before. 
Men  are  better  paid  than  formerly,  but  fewer  of  them  are 


312  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

needed ;  therefore  the  gain  to  the  men  and  the  loss  to  the 
railways  is  less  than  it  appears  to  be. 

Judged  by  this  test  the  labour  agitations  of  recent  years 
have  all  been  economic  failures,  and  they  would  equally  fail 
under  nationalisation.  There  would  be  as  much,  or  even 
more,  necessity  to  show  good  returns  in  State-owned  as 
in  company-owned  railways,  and  that  can  be  done  only 
in  one  way — by  efficient  and  economical  working.  Thus 
the  nationalisers  have  to  choose  between  good  administra- 
tion for  the  railways  and  a  good  time  for  railwaymen. 
The  two  conditions  are  utterly  inconsistent  and  incom- 
patible. They  may  be  partially  reconciled  by  a  judicious 
policy  of  compromise ;  the  traders  being  satisfied  with 
reasonable  rates,  and  the  men  with  the  fair  current  value 
of  their  labour.  Within  these  reciprocal  limits  railway 
transportation  may  be  made  a  great  industry,  with  or 
without  nationalisation . 

The  problem  of  nationalisation  cannot  be  solved  by 
looking  at  it  solely  from  the  railway  point  of  view.  It  is 
equally  necessary  to  regard  it  from  the  opposite  stand- 
point of  the  State.  Are  State-owned  railways  likely  to 
be  of  greater  service  to  the  public  than  privately-owned 
railways  ?  Is  the  State  in  a  fit  condition  to  undertake 
so  huge  an  enterprise,  and  to  manage  it  efficiently  ?  Are 
there  no  more  pressing  and  important  tasks  than  railway 
nationalisation  which  the  State  should  see  to  first  ? 
What  about  the  ordinary  highways,  which,  between 
national  and  local  tinkering,  are  fast  becoming  both  an 
incubus  and  a  scandal  ? 

It  might  have  been  thought  that  the  nationalisation  of 
our  transport  services  should  begin  with  the  public  roads. 
The  future  ownership  and  control  of  them  is  quite  as 
difficult  a  subject  as  the  State  management  of  the  rail- 
ways. When  the  State  has  proved  that  it  can  provide 
the  country  with  good  roads  at  moderate  expense,  then 
it  may  be  time  to  talk  about  nationalising  transportation 
generally.  Meanwhile  there  is  a  more  valuable  service 
that  can  be  rendered  to  the  railways  at  comparatively 
small  expense.  What  they  need  before  nationalisation  or 
anything  of  that  sort  is  an  intelhgible  railway  law  and  an 
appropriate  means  of  administering  it  at  reasonable  cost. 


NATIONALISATION  313 

More  than  half  of  the  ill-feeling  that  exists  between 
railways  and  traders  is  due,  in  fact,  to  slipshod  piecemeal 
law-making.  If  the  trader  had,  as  in  Germany,  a  concise 
code  of  rates  and  regulations  he  could  always  find  out 
for  himself  what  was  the  proper  legal  charge  in  a  given 
ease.  In  this  country  he  very  seldom  can.  When  he  has 
satisfied  himself  that  he  is  being  overcharged  he  has  no 
prompt  and  inexpensive  remedy.  He  must  fight  it  out 
in  the  first  instance  with  the  railway  officials.  Failing 
satisfaction  from  them  he  may  go  to  the  Board  of  Trade, 
where  he  will  get  good  advice,  but  no  more.  For  an 
effective  decision  he  must  go  still  higher,  to  the  Railway 
and  Canal  Commissioners.  In  practice  he  finds  that  every 
disputed  rate  involves  a  laborious  and  costly  lawsuit. 

The  wholesale  advance  of  rates  which  was  made  on 
July  1,  under  the  Railway  Act  of  1913,  will  affect  miUions 
of  traders  and  might  give  rise  to  many  millions  of  rate 
disputes.  But  not  a  fraction  of  them  will  ever  come  to  a 
satisfactory  settlement,  simply  because  there  is  no  means 
of  settling  them  within  reach  of  the  ordinary  trader. 
The  Railway  Commissioners'  Court  is  as  far  above  him 
as  the  Court  of  Chancery  or  the  House  of  Commons  itself. 
As  for  the  Railway  Act  of  1913,  from  its  inception  on 
the  famous  Saturday  night  in  August  1911,  it  has  been 
an  unlucky  measure.  It  interrupted  at  the  last  moment  a 
strike  which,  in  the  true  interest  of  the  railways  and  the 
country,  ought  to  have  been  fought  to  a  finish.  It  was 
ill-received  by  the  House  of  Commons,  and  could  only 
be  pushed  through  by  a  strong  effort  of  Ministerial 
authority.  It  has  provoked  violent  opposition  from  all 
classes  of  traders,  and  broken  the  peace  which  had 
existed  for  twenty  years  between  them  and  the  railway 
companies.  All  because  we  have  no  simple  business-like 
system  of  fixing  railway  rates. 

In  1911  the  general  principle  was  admitted  that  railways 
are  as  much  entitled  as  other  industries  to  living  rates,  and 
that  when  their  working  expenses  were  being  continually 
increased  by  the  higher  demands  of  labour,  they  had  a 
claim  on  the  commimity  for,  at  least,  partial  compensa- 
tion. In  their  case  this  claim  was  all  the  stronger 
because  of  their  special  relations  with  the  State  and  the 


314  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

Legislature.  The  higher  demands  of  labour  were,  to  a 
large  extent,  forced  on  the  railway  companies  by  political 
influence.  They  were  subject  to  the  control  of  special 
tribunals  created  by  the  State.  They  were  supported 
by  a  large  body  of  public  opinion .  The  railway  companies 
could  not  have  resisted  them  indefinitely  without  incurring 
odium  and  impopularity,  such  as  no  large  body  of  em- 
ployers cares  to  endure. 

The  moral  claim  of  the  railways  on  the  community  was 
indisputable.  It  will  not  be  their  fault  if  the  bargain 
they  entered  into  with  the  Government  should  prove 
impracticable.  Its  confirmation  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, if  grudgingly  given,  was  definite.  But  the  moment 
they  began  to  enforce  their  claim  lions  arose  in  the  path. 
In  the  most  favourable  circumstances  it  would  be  a 
herculean  task  to  readjust  millions  of  rates  to  the  new 
conditions.  The  announcement  of  an  average  increase 
of  4  per  cent,  is  of  course  only  a  preliminary  move.  In 
every  case  the  details  will  have  to  be  gone  into  and  duly 
considered.  Afterwards  they  will  have  to  be  discussed 
with  Chambers  of  Commerce,  Chambers  of  Agriculture, 
municipal  councils  and  other  public  bodies,  to  say  nothing 
of  thousands  of  aggrieved  traders.  Many  of  the  latter 
will  be  important  people  whom  the  railways  cannot 
afford  to  quarrel  with. 

This  is  not  by  any  means  a  matter  to  be  settled  with  a 
stroke  of  the  pen  and  a  short  advertisement  in  the  news- 
papers. The  railway  companies  are  not  going  to  have 
it  all  their  own  way,  nor  do  they  evidently  expect  it. 
There  will  have  to  be  a  good  deal  of  haggling  and  of  give 
and  take  before  the  new  rates  are  definitely  fixed. 

The  general  advance  in  rates  was  no  sooner  announced 
than  the  hornet's  nest  became  active.  Then  the  railway 
companies  began  to  draw  in  their  horns.  First  they  got 
two  or  three  explanatory  articles  published  in  The  Times 
to  prove  that  the  advance  was  not  nearly  so  formidable  a 
bogey  as  it  looked.  Still  the  hostile  agitation  of  the  traders 
continued,  and  the  next  move  was  a  partial  climb  down. 
The  Times  of  June  21  contained  a  semi-official  statement 
that  "the  increase  was  not  to  apply  to  class  rates."  The 
following  extract  gives  the  gist  of  the  concession  : — 


NATIONALISATION  316 

"  In  order  to  make  the  position  perfectly  clear,  traders 
and  the  public  may  be  reminded  that  for  the  purpose  of 
the  practical  working  of  the  railway  traffic,  all  goods 
carried,  or  likely  to  be  carried,  by  rail  are  divided  into 
classes  under  a  recognised  classification,  and  that  the 
rates  charged  fall  into  two  main  groups:  (1)  class  rates 
which,  except  for  long  distances,  approximate  somewhat 
to  the  maxima ;  and  (2)  exceptional  rates,  which  are 
rates  for  similar  traffic,  but  are  fixed  on  a  lower  basis, 
to  meet  various  conditions  in  regard  to  full  truck  loads, 
large  lots,  etc.,  such  exceptional  rates  being,  as  a  rule, 
substantially  below  the  corresponding  class  rates.  .  .    . 

"  Wliat  the  companies  have  decided  to  do,  in  order  to 
simplify  the  position,  is  to  eliminate  from  the  increase, 
as  announced,  all  trafiic  that  is  now  carried  on  at  ordinary 
class  rates,  except  in  certain  instances,  the  most  important 
of  which  are  the  long-distance  traffics  between  England 
and  Wales  and  Scotland  or  Ireland,  and  class  rates  on  the 
Scotch  railways.  Otherwise  the  increases  will  apply 
exclusively  to  exceptional  rates.  Most  of  the  through 
rates  (whether  class  or  exceptional)  for  merchandise  or 
produce  carried  from  or  to  the  Continent  will  be  subject 
to  the  same  increases." 

In  thus  limiting  the  advance  to  **  exceptional  "  rates, 
which  apply  mainly  to  heavy  goods,  the  railway  companies 
may  be  reducing  the  area  of  opposition,  but  they  will  not 
diminish  its  intensity.  It  is  agricultural  produce,  build- 
ing materials,  minerals,  machinery,  metal-ware,  raw 
cotton  and  wool,  and  similar  commodities  that  will  now 
have  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the  higher  rates.  Broadly 
speaking,  it  is  the  canal  class  of  traffic  that  is  going  to 
be  penalised,  and  the  question  will  naturally  arise,  if  an 
effort  should  not  be  made  to  relegate  such  traffic  back  to 
the  canals. 

If  British  legislators  and  traders  had  had  a  shred  of  the 
foresight  which  the  same  classes  have  shown  in  Germany 
and  France,  our  canals  would  not  have  been  allowed  to 
become  useless  derehcts.  The  question  of  reviving  them 
has  been  frequently  raised  in  an  academic  way,  but  this 
move  of  the  railway  companies  may  put  heart  and  soul 
into  the  agitation.     It  has  already  done  so,  in  fact,  in 


316  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

the  Midlands.  The  Birmingham  Chamber  of  Commerce 
has  led  off  with  a  strong  declaration  against  any  increase 
of  railway  rates,  and  in  favour  of  canal  competition. 

For  aught  we  know  we  may  be  entering  on  a  new  era 
in  our  methods  of  transportation.  Unless  large  capacity 
canals  are  found  to  be  impracticable  from  an  engineering 
and  a  financial  point  of  view,  there  would  be  much  to  say 
in  their  favour.  A  transfer  of  the  greater  part  of  our 
heavy  traffic  from  rail  to  water  carriage  might  prove  to 
be,  not  only  an  important  national  economy,  but  a  great 
relief  to  the  railways,  and  a  help  to  them  in  conducting 
the  fast  traffic,  which  properly  belongs  to  them,  with 
greater  safety  and  efficiency.  Very  probably  it  would 
even  now  pay  them  to  weed  out  some  of  their  low-grade 
freight,  and  they  will  almost  certainly  have  to  do  it  a 
few  years  hence. 

This  is  another  element  in  the  vexed  question  of  railway 
nationalisation.  How  long  will  the  railway  companies, 
as  at  present  constituted,  be  able  to  grapple  with  the 
rapid  growth  of  their  traffic,  goods  and  passengers  alike  ? 
The  more  their  physical  difficulties  increase  the  larger 
will  be  the  scope  for  political  and  administrative  inter- 
ference. Conversely,  the  more  they  are  interfered  with 
and  regulated  the  more  their  difficulties  will  multiply. 
The  policy  of  official  intervention  is  fast  approaching  a 
climax,  when  it  will  have  to  be  decided,  once  for  all, 
whether  State  control  should  not  be  carried  to  its  logical 
issue  by  transferring  responsibility  from  the  controlled 
to  the  controllers.  The  existing  hydra-headed  system 
of  supervision  is  becoming  intolerable.  The  Board  of 
Trade  by  itself  might  be  endurable  and  even  helpful. 
The  Railway  Commissioners,  if  costly,  are  perhaps  a 
necessary  evil.  The  House  of  Commons,  it  is  to  be 
feared,  there  is  no  escape  from.  But  a  triple  combina- 
tion of  House  of  Commons,  Railway  Commissioners  and 
Board  of  Trade  is  too  dreadful  to  contemplate  as  a 
permanency. 

By  the  way,  what  place  would  these  incongruous 
authorities  have  in  the  national  regime  ?  Could  they  be 
dispensed  with,  or  would  they  not  be  more  meddlesome 
than  ever  ?     If  they  are  to  be  kept  on,  would  the  change 


NATIONALISATION  317 

from  joint-stock  ownership  to  State  o\\Tiersliip  not  be 
much  greater  in  name  than  in  reality  ? 

An  article  entitled  "  Railways  and  Traders,"  which 
appeared  in  the  Daily  Telegraph  of  March  12,  1913,  may 
be  here  quoted  as  a  concise  summary  of  the  peculiarities 
and  defects  of  our  railway  law.  Traders  may  find  in  it 
useful  information  as  to  the  principal  railway  Acts 
operative  at  the  present  time,  and  the  methods  of  judicial 
interpretation  applied  to  them. 

''  What  is  most  needed  to-day,  both  by  railways  and 
traders,  is  a  simple  and  rapid  method  of  settling  their 
differences.  Though  the  United  States  practice  is  by  no 
means  perfect,  it  is  much  superior  to  our  own  in  directness 
and  simplicity.  When  the  railroads  there  wish  to  revise 
their  rates — and  they  are  clamouring  for  it  now  as  per- 
sistently as  our  own  railway  companies — ^they  can  go 
straight  to  the  Liter-State  Commerce  Commission.  It 
hears  both  them  and  the  traders,  and  pronounces  judgment 
accordingly.  Scores  of  such  petitions  to  authorise  higher 
rates  are  always  before  the  Commission,  and  decisions  on 
them  are  being  frequently  given.  The  railroads  know 
exactly  what  to  do  when  they  want  a  rate  altered.  They 
send  in  their  case,  and  in  due  time  get  their  answer. 

"  But  British  practice  inverts  that  natural  course  of 
proceeding.  The  railway  company  announces  its  new 
rate — as  so  many  of  them  have  done  lately — and  then  any 
dissatisfied  trader  may  take  them  before  the  Com- 
missioners, He  appears  as  a  complainant,  and  the  railway 
company  has  to  justify  its  action.  This  is  where  the 
complications  and  the  fine  distinctions  come  in.  First, 
the  desired  increase  must  be  within  the  maximum  rates 
fixed  according  to  the  Act  of  1894.  Second,  passenger 
traffic  has  to  be  excluded,  but  the  Act  does  not  say  how 
the  working  expenses  of  passenger  and  goods  trains  are 
to  be  distinguished.  Third,  a  sharp  line  is  drawn  at 
Aug.  19,  1911,  and  no  previous  advance  in  wages  is  to 
be  allowed  to  count.  Fourth,  it  has  to  be  proved  that 
the  advance  asked  for  is  part  of  a  general  scheme  to  meet 
a  particular  increase  in  the  cost  of  working.  Next,  it 
has  to  be  proved  that  the  advance  is  not  '  on  the  whole 
greater  than   is   reasonably  required  for  the  purpose.* 


318  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

These  cryptic  provisos  and  qualifications  wind  up  with  a 
prize  puzzle.  *  The  proportion  of  the  increase  of  rates 
or  charges  allocated  to  the  particular  traffic  with  respect 
to  which  the  complaint  is  made  must  not  be  unreason- 
able.'    Who  is  to  interpret  a  conundrum  like  that  ? 

"  The  new  Act  may  indirectly  serve  a  good  purpose  if 
it  calls  attention  to  the  vagaries  and  diversities  of  our 
existing  railway  laws.  They  are  sadly  in  need  of  revision 
and  consolidation:  so  much  so  that  this  should  have 
preceded  any  attempt  to  add  to  their  number.  Railway 
companies  and  traders  would,  in  the  writer's  opinion, 
get  on  much  better  if  they  would  make  an  honest  and 
sincere  endeavour  to  understand  their  existing  legal 
relations.  The  companies,  of  course,  are  well  posted  on 
the  subject.  They  have  an  army  of  legal  and  managerial 
experts  continually  engaged  in  studying  it  from  their  own 
point  of  view.  But  what  is  A  B  C  to  them  is  Greek  to 
the  ordinary  trader. 

"  If  he  were  to  tackle  the  subject  historically  he  would 
have  to  wade  through  at  least  a  dozen  Acts  of  Parliament 
in  order  to  settle  the  simplest  legal  point.  The  following 
are  the  nine  most  important  Acts  now  in  force  : 

Railway  and  Canal  Traffic  Act,  1854. 
Railway  Clauses  Act,  1863. 
Regulation  of  Railways,  1873. 
Board  of  Trade  Arbitration  Act,  1874. 
Cheap  Trains  Act,  1883. 
Railway  and  Canal  Traffic  Act,  1888. 
Conveyance  of  Mails  Act,  1893. 
Railway  and  Canal  Traffic  Act,  1894. 
Railways  (Private  Sidings)  Act,  1904. 

"  The  above  list  is  calculated  to  convey  an  exalted  idea 
of  the  comprehensiveness  and  minuteness  of  Parlia- 
mentary supervision  over  railways.  It  shows  also  the 
tendency  of  this  supervision  to  become  more  and  more 
meddlesome,  and  its  interference  more  frequent.  In 
the  first  half -century  of  the  railway  age  new  railway  Acts 
were  passed  only  about  once  in  a  decade.  In  the  past 
half-century  five  years  has  been  the  average  interval, 
and  now  even  that  is  considered  too  long.     In  the  decade 


NATIONALISATION  319 

1888-1897  no  less  than  four  railway  Acts  of  historical 
importance  got  through  ParHament.  Two  of  them — 
those  of  1888  and  1894 — still  form  the  basis  of  our  railway 
rates  and  classification. 

"It  is  hardly  possible  for  any  one  having  large  dealings 
with  the  railways  to  do  himself  justice  in  his  daily  battle 
with  them  unless  he  has  ascertained  his  exact  legal  position 
from  the  Acts  themselves.  By  examining  them  consecu- 
tively he  will  be  able  to  trace  the  origin  and  development 
of  the  pecuhar  maxims  of  British  railway  administration. 
In  the  Act  of  1854  he  will  find  (Clause  2)  one  of  the 
oldest  and  most  venerable  doctrines  of  our  railway  law — 
that  of  equal  rates  for  equal  services.  *  No  such  com- 
pany/ it  says,  '  shall  make  or  give  any  undue  or  un- 
reasonable preference  or  advantage  to  or  in  favour  of  any 
particular  person  or  company,  or  any  particular  descrip- 
tion of  traffic,  in  any  respect  whatsoever.' 

"  This  was  a  brave  declaration,  but  very  feeble  and 
costly  means  were  provided  for  its  enforcement.  Ag- 
grieved traders  were  given  the  expensive  privilege  of 
applying  to  any  of  his  Majesty's  superior  CJourts  in 
England,  Scotland,  or  Ireland  for  a  writ  of  injunction 
against  the  offending  railway.  But  it  was  worth  while 
risking  something  to  obtain  a  conviction,  as  the  offender 
might  be  fined  to  the  tune  of  £200  a  day.  Undue  prefer- 
ence was  the  chief  bogey  of  British  traders  about  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Ten  years  later 
working  agreements  came  into  fashion,  and  the  Act  of 
1863  was  specially  concerned  with  them.  It  laid  down 
rules  for  carrying  them  out,  subject  to  the  proviso  that 
they  must  be  approved  both  by  the  shareholders  of  the 
companies  concerned  and  by  the  Board  of  Trade. 

"  Skipping  another  ten  years  we  come  to  the  Act  of 
1873,  by  which  the  first  Railway  and  Canal  Commission  was 
created.  It  also  introduced  two  other  innovations — the 
compulsory  publication  of  rates  and  the  right  of  the 
Railway  Commissioners  to  fix  terminal  charges.  In  the 
language  of  the  Act  (Clause  15)  they  are  *  to  decide  what 
is  a  reasonable  sum  to  be  paid  to  any  company  for  loading 
and  unloading,  covering,  collection,  delivery,  and  other 
services  of  a  like  nature.'     It  wa&  a  very  lawyer-like 


320  BRITISH  RAILWAYS 

arrangement  to  split  up  terminal  charges  into  a  multitude 
of  small  details,  and  it  has  proved,  as  might  have  been 
expected,  a  very  doubtful  policy  for  the  railways.  If 
they  could  have  decided  on  a  reasonable  scale  of  inclusive 
charges  they  might  have  spared  themselves  a  large  amount 
of  worry  and  unpopularity. 

*'  The  corner-stones  of  our  existing  railway  law  are  the 
Acts  of  1888  and  1894.  The  former  established  a  new 
Railway  Commission,  which  was  expected  to  be  more 
commercial  and  less  legal  than  its  predecessor ;  but  so  far 
the  difference  between  them  has  been  undistinguishable. 
Business  men  still  wait  longingly  for  their  ideal  court  of 
law,  which  is  to  combine  justice  with  common  sense. 
The  new  Commission,  moreover,  had  the  advantage  of 
the  old  one  in  enjojdng  a  much  wider  jurisdiction.  The 
number  of  local  authorities  entitled  to  act  as  complainants 
was  greatly  enlarged.  It  now  includes  any  association 
of  traders  or  freighters,  or  Chamber  of  Commerce  or 
Agriculture,  as  may,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board  of  Trade, 
*  be  a  proper  body  to  make  such  complaint.' 

From  every  point  of  view  and  the  traders'  especially,  it 
is  a  complex  and  confused  foundation  on  which  a  nationalis- 
ing pohcy  would  have  to  be  built  up.  Such  policies  may 
be  easy  to  talk  about,  but  let  the  talkers,  whether  they 
be  trading  or  trade-union  grievance-mongers,  ask  them- 
selves where  they  would  begin  their  revolution.  As  the 
above  sketch  indicates,  there  are  many  tangles  to  straighten 
out  before  we  can  venture  to  launch  into  electioneering 
experiments  with  a  railway  system  which  owes  its 
greatest  virtues  to  private  enterprise  and  its  worst  faults 
to  the  politicians. 


Richard  Clay  di  Son;  Ltd.,  London  and  Bungay. 


VAN  NOSTRANDS 
"WESTMINSTER"  SERIES 

Bound  in  Uniform  Style. 
Fully  Illustrated.        Price  $2.00  net  each. 

Gas  Engines.     By  W.  J.  Marshall,  Assoc.  M.I.Mech.E., 
and  Capt.  H.  Riall  Sankey,  R.E.  (Ret.).    M.Inst.C.E., 
M.I.Mech.E.    300  Pages,  127  Illustrations. 
List  of  Contents  :  Theory  of  the  Gas  Engine.   The  Otto  Cycle.   The 
Two  Stroke  Cycle.     Water  Cooling  of  Gas  Engine  Parts.     Ignition. 
Operating  Gas  Engines.     The  Arrangement  of  a  Gas  Engine  Instal- 
lation.    The  Testing  of  Gas  Engines.     Governing.     Gas  and  Gas 
Producers.     Index. 

Textiles.  By  A.  F.  Barker,  M.Sc,  with  Chapters  on  the 
Mercerized  and  Artificial  Fibres,  and  the  Dyeing  of 
Textile  Materials  by  W.  M.  Gardner,  M.Sc,  F.C.S.  ; 
Silk  Throwing  and  Spinning,  by  R.  Snow  ;  the  Cotton 
Industry,  by  W.  H.  Cook  ;  the  Linen  Industry,  by  F. 
Bradbury.    370  Pages.    86  Illustrations. 

Contents  :  The  History  of  the  Textile  Industries ;  also  of  Textile 
Inventions  and  Inventors.  The  Wool,  Silk,  Cotton,  Flax,  etc.. 
Growing  Industries.  The  Mercerized  and  Artificial  Fibres  em- 
ployed in  the  Textile  Industries.  The  Dyeing  of  Textile  Materials. 
The  Principles  of  Spinning.  Processes  preparatory  to  Spinning. 
The  Principles  of  Weaving.  The  Principles  of  Designing  and 
Colouring.  The  Principles  of  Finishing.  Textile  Calculations. 
The  Woollen  Industry.  The  Worsted  Industry.  The  Dress 
Goods,  Stuff,  and  Linings  Industry.  The  Tapestry  and  Carpet 
Industry.  Silk  Throwing  and  Spinning.  The  Cotton  Industry. 
The  Linen  Industry  historically  and  commercially  considered. 
Recent  Developments  and  the  Future  of  the  Textile  Industries. 
Index. 

Soils  and  Manures.  By  J.  Alan  Murray,  B.Sc.  367 
Pages.  33  Illustrations. 
Contents  :  Introductory.  The  Origin  of  Soils.  Physical  Proper- 
ties of  Soils.  Chemistry  of  Soils.  Biology  of  Soils.  Fertility. 
Principles  of  Manuring.  Phosphatic  Manures.  Phosphonitro- 
genous  Manures,  Nitrogenous  Manures.  Potash  Manures. 
Compound  and  Miscellaneous  Manures.  General  Manures.  Farm- 
yard Manure.  Valuation  of  Manures.  Composition  and  Manural 
Value  of  Various  Farm  Foods. 

(  I  ) 


THE    '^WESTMINSTER"    SERIES 

Coal.  By  James  Tonge,  M.I.M.E.,  F.G.S.,  etc.  (Lecturer 
on  Mining  at  Victoria  University,  Manchester).  283 
Pages.  With  46  Illustrations,  many  of  them  showing  the 
Fossils  found  in  the  Coal  Measures. 
List  of  Contents  :  History.  Occurrence.  Mode  of  Formation 
of  Coal  Seams.  Fossils  of  the  Coal  Measures.  Botany  of  the 
Coal-Measure  Plants.  Coalfields  of  the  British  Isles.  Foreign 
Coalfields.  The  Classification  of  Coals.  The  Valuation  of  Coal. 
Foreign  Coals  and  their  Values.  Uses  of  CotI.  The  Production 
of  Heat  from  Coal,  Waste  of  Coal.  The  Preparation  of  Coal 
for  the  Market.     Coaling  Stations  of  the  World.     Index. 

Iron  and  Steel  By  J.  H.  Stansbie,  B.Sc.  (Lend.),  F.I.C. 
385  Pages.  With  86  Illustrations. 
List  of  Contents  :  Introductory,  Iron  Ores.  Combustible  and 
other  materials  used  in  Iron  and  Steel  Manufacture.  Primitive 
Methods  of  Iron  and  Steel  Production.  Pig  Iron  and  its  Manu- 
facture. The  Refining  of  Pig  Iron  in  Small  Charges.  Crucible 
and  Weld  Steel.  The  Bessemer  Process.  The  Open  Hearth 
Process.  Mechanical  Treatment  of  Iron  and  Steel.  Physical 
and  Mechanical  Properties  of  Iron  and  Steel.  Iron  and  Steel 
under  the  Microscope.  Heat  Treatment  of  Iron  and  Steel.  Elec- 
tric Smelting.     Special  Steels.     Index. 

Timber*     By  J.  R.    Baterden,  Assoc.M.Inst.C.E.     334 

Pages.  54  Illustrations. 
Contents  :  Timber.  The  World's  Forest  Supply.  Quantities  of 
Timber  used.  Timber  imports  into  Great  Britain.  European 
Timber.  Timber  of  the  United  States  and  Canada.  Timbers 
of  South  America,  Central  America,  and  West  India  Islands.  Tim- 
bers of  India,  Burma,  and  Andaman  Islands.  Timber  of  the 
Straits  Settlements,  Malay  Peninsula,  Japan  and  South  and 
West  Africa.  Australian  Timbers.  Timbers  of  New  Zealand 
and  Tasmania.  Causes  of  Decay  and  Destruction  of  Timber. 
Seasoning  and  Impregnation  of  Timber.  Defects  in  Timber  and 
General  Notes.  Strength  and  Testing  of  Timber.  "  Figure  "  in 
Timber.     Appendix.     Bibliography. 

Natural  Sources  of  Power.  By  Robert  S.  Ball,  B.Sc, 
A.MJnst.C.E.  362  Pages.  With  104  Diagrams  and 
Illustrations. 
Contents  :  Preface.  Units  with  Metric  Equivalents  and  Abbre- 
viations. Length  and  Distance.  Surface  and  Area.  Volumes. 
Weights  or  Measures.  Pressures.  Linear  Velocities,  Angular 
Velocities.  Acceleration.  Energy.  Power.  Introductory 
Water  Power  and  Methods  of  Measuring.  Application  of  Water 
Power  to  the  Propulsion  of  Machinery.     The  Hydraulic  Turbine. 

{ 2  ) 


THE   "WESTMINSTER"    SERIES 

Various  Types  of  Turbine.  ConstriKtion  of  Water  Power  Plants. 
Water  Power  Installations.  The  I^ei-ulation  of  Turbines.  Wind 
Pressure,  Velocity,  and  Methods  of  Measuring.  The  Application 
of  Wind  Power  to  Industry.  The  Modern  Windmill.  Con- 
structional Details.  Power  of  Modern  Windmills.  Appendices, 
A,B,C  Index. 

Electric  Lamps.  By  Maurice  Solomon,  A.C.G.I., 
A.M.I.E.E.  339  Pages.  112  Illustrations. 
Contents:  The  Principles  of  Artificial  Illumination.  The  Produc- 
tion of  Artificial  Illumination.  Photometry.  Methods  of  Testing. 
Carbon  Filament  Lamps.  The  Nemst  Lamp.  Metallic  Filament 
Lamps.  The  Electric  Arc.  The  Manufacture  and  Testing  of  Arc 
Lamp  Carbons.  Arc  Lamps.  Miscellaneous  Lamps.  Compari- 
son of  Lamps  of  Different  Types. 

Liquid  and  Gaseous  Fuels^  and  the  Part  they  play 
in  Modern  Power  Production.  By  Professor 
Vivian  B.  Lewes,  F.I.C,  F.C.S.,  Prof,  of  Chemistry, 
Royal  Naval  College,  Greenwich.  ,350  Pages.  With  54 
Illustrations. 
List  of  Contents  :  Lavoisier's  Discovery  of  the  Nature  of  Com- 
bustion, etc.  The  Cycle  of  Animal  and  Vegetable  Life.  Method 
of  determining  Calorific  Value.  The  Discovery  of  Petroleum 
in  America.  Oil  Lamps,  etc.  The  History  of  Coal  Gas.  Calorific 
Value  of  Coal  Gas  and  its  Constituents.  The  History  of  Water 
Gas.  Incomplete  Combustion.  Comparison  of  the  Thermal 
Values  of  our  Fuels,  etc.     Appendix.     Bibliography.     Index. 

Electric  Power  and  Traction.  By  F.  H.  Davies, 
A.M.I.E.E.  299  Pages.  With  66  Illustrations. 
List  of  Contents  :  Introduction.  The  Generation  and  Distri- 
bution of  Power.  The  Electric  Motor.  The  Application  of 
Electric  Power.  Electric  Power  in  Collieries.  Electric  Power 
in  Engineering  Workshops.  Electric  Power  in  Textile  Factories. 
Electric  Power  in  the  Printing  Trade.  Electric  Power  at  Sea. 
Electric  Power  on  Canals.  Electric  Traction.  The  Overhead 
System  and  Track  Work.  The  Conduit  System.  The  Surface 
Contact  System.  Car  Building  and  Equipment.  Electric  Rail- 
wajrs.     Glossary.     Index. 

Decorative  Glass  Processes.  By  Arthur  Louis 
DuTHiE.  279  Pages.  38  Illustrations. 
Contents  :  Introduction.  Various  Kinds  of  Glass  in  Use  :  Their 
Characteristics,  Comparative  Price,  etc.  Leaded  Lights.  Stained 
Glass.  Embossed  Glass.  Brilliant  Cutting  and  Bevelling.  Sand- 
Blast  and  Crystalline  Glass.  Gilding.  Silvering  and  Mosa/c. 
Proprietary  Processes.     Patents.     Glossary. 

(  3  ) 


THE    "  WESTMINSTER '*    SERIES 

Town  Gas  and  its  Uses  for  the  Production  of 
Light,  Heat,  and  Motive  Power.  By  W.  H.  Y. 
Webber,  C.E.  282  Pages.  With  71  Illustrations. 
List  of  Contents  :  The  Nature  and  Properties  of  Town  Gas.  The 
History  and  Manufacture  of  Town  Gas.  The  Bye-Products  of 
Coal  Gas  Manufacture.  Gas  Lights  and  Lighting.  Practical 
Gas  Lighting.  The  Cost  of  Gas  Lighting.  Heating  and  Warm- 
ing by  Gas.  Cooking  by  Gas.  The  Healthfulness  and  Safety 
of  Gas  in  all  its  uses.  Town  Gas  for  Power  Generation,  including 
Private  Electricity  Supply.  The  Legal  Relations  of  Gas  Sup- 
pliers, Consumers,  and  the  Public.     Index. 

Electro-Metallurgy.  By  J.  B.  C.  Kershaw,  F.I.C. 
318  Pages.  With  61  Illustrations. 
Contents  :  Introduction  and  Historical  Survey.  Aluminium. 
Production.  Details  of  Processes  and  Works.  Costs.  Utiliza- 
tion. Future  of  the  Metal.  Bullion  and  Gold.  Silver  Refining 
Process.  Gold  Refining  Processes.  Gold  Extraction  Processes. 
Calcium  Carbide  and  Acetylene  Gas.  The  Carbide  Furnace  and 
Process.  Production.  Utilization.  Carborundum.  Details  of 
Manufacture.  Properties  and  Uses.  Copper.  Copper  Refin- 
ing. Descriptions  of  Refineries.  Costs.  Properties  and  Utiliza- 
tion. The  Elmore  and  similar  Processes.  Electrolytic  Extrac- 
tion Processes.  Electro-Metallurgical  Concentration  Processes. 
Ferro-alloys.  Descriptions  of  Works.  Utilization.  Glass  and 
Quartz  Glass.  Graphite.  Details  of  Process.  Utilization.  Iron 
and  Steel.  Descriptions  of  Furnaces  and  Processes.  Yields  and 
Costs.  Comparative  Costs.  Lead.  The  Salom  Process.  The  Betts 
Refining  Process.  The  Betts  Reduction  Process,  White  Lead  Pro- 
cesses. Miscellaneous  Products.  Calcium.  Carbon  Ri.ulphide. 
Carbon  Tetra-Chloride.  Diamantine.  Magnesium.  Phosphorus. 
Silicon  and  its  Compounds.  Nickel.  Wet  Processes.  Dry 
Processes.  Sodium.  Descriptions  of  Cells  and  Processes.  Tin, 
Alkaline  Processes  for  Tin  Stripping.  Acid  Processes  for  Tin 
Stripping.  Salt  Processes  for  Tin  Stripping.  Zinc.  Wet  Pro- 
cesses. Dry  Processes.  Electro-Thermal  Processes.  Electro 
Galvanizing.     Glossary.     Name  Index. 

Radio-Telegraphy.  By  C.  C.  F.  Monckton,  M.I.E.E. 
389  Pages.  With  173  Diagrams  and  Illustrations. 
Contents  :  Preface.  Electric  Phenomena.  Electric  Vibrations. 
Electro-Magnetic  Waves.  Modified  Hertz  Waves  used  in  Radio- 
Telegraphy.  Apparatus  used  for  Charging  the  Oscillator.  The 
Electric  Oscillator  :  Methods  of  Arrangement,  Practical  Details. 
The  Receiver  :  Methods  of  Arrangement,  The  Detecting  Ap- 
paratus, and  other  details.  Measurements  in  Radio-Telegraphy, 
The  Experimental  Station  at  Elmers  End  :  Lodge-Muirhead 
System.  Radio  -  Telegraph  Station  at  Nauen  :  Telefunken 
System.     Station    at    Lyngby :     Poulsen    System.     The    Lodge- 

( 4 ) 


THE    "WESTMINSTER"    SERIES 

Muirhead  System,  the  Marconi  System,  Telefunken  System,  and 
Poulsen  System.  Portable  Stations.  Radio-Telephony.  Ap- 
pendices :  The  Morse  Alphabet.  Electrical  Units  used  in  this 
Book.     International  Control  of  Radio-Telegraphy.     Index. 

India-Rubber  and  its  Manufacture,  with  Chapters 
on  Gutta-Percha  and  Balata.  By  H.  L.  Terry, 
F.I.C.,  Assoc.  Inst. M.M.    303  Pages.     With  Illustrations. 

List  of  Contents  :  Preface.  Introduction :  Historical  and 
General.  Raw  Rubber.  Botanical  Origin.  Tapping  the  Trees. 
Coagulation.  Principal  Raw  Rubbers  of  Commerce.  Pseudo- 
Rubbers.  Congo  Rubber.  General  Considerations.  Chemical 
and  Physical  Properties.  Vulcanization.  India-rubber  Planta- 
tions, India-rubber  Substitutes.  Reclaimed  Rubber.  Washing 
and  Drying  of  Raw  Rubber.  Compounding  of  Rubber.  Rubber 
Solvents  and  their  Recovery,  Rubber  Solution,  Fine  Cut  Sheet 
and  Articles  made  therefrom.  Elastic  Thread,  Mechanical 
Rubber  Goods.  Sundry  Rubber  Articles.  India-rubber  Proofed 
Textures.  Tyres.  India-rubber  Boots  and  Shoes,  Rubber  for 
Insulated  Wires.  Vulcanite  Contracts  for  India-rubber  Goods. 
The  Testing  of  Rubber  Goods.  Gutta-Percha.  Balata.  Biblio- 
graphy.    Index. 

The  Railway  Locomotive*  What  It  Is,  and  Why  It  is 
What  It  Is.  By  Vaughan  Pendred,  M.Inst.M.E., 
Mem.Inst.M.I.     321  Pages.     94  Illustrations. 

Contents  :  The  Locomotive  Engine  as  a  Vehicle — Frames.  Bogies, 
The  Action  of  the  Bogie.  Centre  of  Gravity.  Wheels.  Wheel 
and  Rail.  Adhesion.  Propulsion.  Counter-Balancing.  The  Loco- 
motive as  a  Steam  Generator — The  Boiler,  The  Construction  of  the 
Boiler,  Stay  Bolts.  The  Fire-Box.  The  Design  of  Boilers. 
Combustion.  Fuel.  The  Front  End.  The  Blast  Pipe.  Steam 
Water.  Priming.  The  QuaUty  of  Steam.  Superheating.  Boiler 
Fittings.  The  Injector.  The  Locomotive  as  a  Steam  Engine — 
Cylinders  and  Valves.  Friction.  Valve  Gear.  Expansion.  The 
Stephenson  Link  Motion.  Walschaert's  and  Joy's  Gears.  SUde 
Valves.  Compounding.  Piston  Valves.  The  Indicator.  Ten- 
ders. Tank  Engines,  Lubrication.  Brakes.  The  Running  Shed. 
The  Work  of  the  Locomotive. 

Glass  Manufacture.  By  Walter  Rosenhain,  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Department  of  Metallurgy  in  the  National 
Physical  Laboratory,  late  Scientific  Adviser  in  the  Glass 
Works  of  Messrs.  Chance  Bros.  &  Co.  280  Pages.  With 
Illustrations. 
Contents  :  Preface.  Definitions.  Physical  and  Chemical  Qualities, 
Mechanical,   Thermal,   and    Electrical   Properties.     Transparency 

(  5  ) 


THE    "WESTMINSTER"    SERIES 


and  Colour.  Raw  materials  of  manufacture.  Crucibles  and 
Furnaces  for  Fusion.  Process  of  Fusion.  Processes  used  in 
•  Working  of  Glass.  Bottle.  Blown  and  Pressed.  Rolled  or 
Plate.  Sheet  and  Crown.  Coloured.  Optical  Glass  :  Nature 
and  Properties,  Manufacture.  Miscellaneous  Products.  Ap- 
pendix.    Bibliography    of    Glass    Manufacture.     Index 

Precious  Stones.    By  W.  Goodchild,  M.B.,  B.Ch.    319 
Pages.     With  42  Illustrations.     With  a  Chapter  on 
Artificial  Stones.    By  Robert  Dykes. 

List  of  Contents  :  Introductory  and  Historical.  Genesis  <-{ 
Precious  Stones.  Physical  Properties.  The  Cutting  and  Polish- 
ing of  Gems.  Imitation  Gems  and  the  Artificial  Production  of 
Precious  Stones.  The  Diamond.  Fluor  Spar  and  the  Forms  of 
Silica.  Corundum,  including  Ruby  and  Sapphire.  Spinel  and 
Chrysoberyl.  The  Carbonates  and  the  Felspars.  The  Pyroxen2 
and  Amphibole  Groups.  Beryl,  Cordierite,  Lapis  Lazuli  and  the 
Garnets.  Olivine,  Topaz,  Tourmaline  and  other  Silicates.  Phos- 
phates, Sulphates,  and  Carbon  Compounds, 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 

Chemistry  and  Physics  of  Building  Materials. 
By  Alan  E.  Munby,  M.A.     365  Pages.     Illustrated. 

Contents  :  Elementary  Science  :  Natural  Laws  and  Scientific  In- 
vestigations. Measurement  and  the  Properties  of  Matter.  Air 
and  Combustion.  Nature  and  Measurement  of  Heat  and  Its 
Effects  on  Materials.  Chemical  Signs  and  Calculations.  Water 
and  Its  Impurities.  Sulphur  and  the  Nature  of  Acids  and  Bases. 
Coal  and  Its  Products.  Outlines  of  Geology.  Building  Materials  : 
The  Constituents  of  Stones,  Clays  and  Cementing  Materials.  Clas- 
sification, Examination  and  Testing  of  Stones,  Brick  and  Other 
Clays.  Kiln  Reactions  and  the  Properties  of  Burnt  Clays.  Plasters 
and  Limes.  Cements.  Theories  upon  the  Setting  of  Plasters  and 
Hydraulic  Materials.  Artificial  Stone.  Oxychloride  Cement. 
Asphaite.  General  Properties  of  Metals.  Iron  and  Steel.  Other 
Metals  and  Alloys.  Timber.  Paints:  Oils,  Thinners  and  Varnishes ; 
Bases,  Pigments  and  Driers. 

Patents,  Designs  and  Trade  Marks  :  The  Law 
and  Commercial  Usage.  By  Kenneth  R.  Swan, 
B.A.   (Oxon.),  of  the   Inner   Temple.    Barrister-at-Law. 

402  Pages. 

Contents  :  Table  of  Cases  Cited— Pay/  /. — Letters  Patent.  Intro- 
duction. General.     Historical.    I.,    II.,    III.   Invention,    Novelty, 

(    (^    ) 


THE    "  WESTMINSTER  *'    SERIES 


Subject  Matter,  and  Utility  the  Essentials  of  Patentable  Invention. 
IV.  Specification.  V.  Construction  of  Specification.  VI.  Who 
May  Apply  for  a  Patent.  VU.  Application  and  Grant.  VIII. 
Opposition.  IX.  Patent  Rights.  Legal  Value.  Commercial 
Value.  X.  Amendment.  XI.  Infringement  of  Patent.  XII. 
Action  for  Infringement.  XIII.  Action  to  Restrain  Threats. 
XIV.  Negotiation  of  Patents  by  Sale  and  Licence.  XV.  Limita- 
tions on  Patent  Right.  XVI.  Revocation.  XVII.  Prolonga- 
tion. XVIII.  Miscellaneous.  XIX.  Foreign  Patents.  XX. 
Foreign  Patent  Laws  :  United  States  of  America.  Germany. 
France.     Table  of  Cost,  etc.,  of  Foreign  Patents.     Appendix  A. — 

I.  Table  of  Forms  and  Fees.  2.  Cost  of  Obtaining  a  British 
Patent.  3.  Convention  Countries.  Part  II. — Copyright  in 
Design.  Introduction.  I.  Registrable  Designs.  II.  Registra- 
tion. III.  Marking.  IV.  Infringement.  Appendix  B. — i. 
Table  of  Forms  and  Fees.  2,  Classification  of  Goods.  Part 
III. — Trade  Marks.     Introduction.     I.  Meaning  of  Trade  Mark. 

II.  Qualification  for  Registration.  III.  Restrictions  on  Regis- 
tration. IV.  Registration.  V.  Effect  of  Registration.  VI. 
Miscellaneous.  Appendix  C. — Table  of  Forms  and  Fees.  Indices. 
I.  Patents.     2.  Designs.     3.  Trade  Marks. 


The  Book:  Its  History  and  Development.  By 
Cyril  Davenport,  V.D.,  F.S.A.  266  Pages.  With 
7  Plates  and  126  Figures  in  the  text. 

List  of  Contents  :  Early  Records.  Rolls,  Books  and  Book 
bindings.  Paper.  Printing.  Illustrations.  Miscellanea. 
Leathers.  The  Ornamentation  of  Leather  Bookbindings  without 
Gold.  The  Ornamentation  of  Leather  Bookbindings  with  Gold. 
Bibliography.     Index. 


The  Manufacture  of  Paper.  By  R.  W.  Sindall,  F.C.S., 
Consulting  Chemist  to  the  Wood  Pulp  and  Paper  Trades  ; 
Lecturer  on  Paper-making  for  the  Hertfordshire  County 
Council,  the  Bucks  County  Council,  the  Printing  and 
Stationery  Trades  at  Exeter  Hall  (1903-4),  the  Institute 
of  Printers ;  Technical  Adviser  to  the  Government  of 
India,  1905.     275  Pages.     58  Illustrations. 

Contents  :  Preface.  List  of  Illustrations.  Historical  Notice.  Cel- 
lulose and  Paper-making  Fibres.  The  Manufacture  of  Paper  from 
Rags,  Esparto  and  Straw.  Wood  Pulp  and  Wood  Pulp  Papers. 
Brown  Papers  and  Boards.  Special  kinds  of  Paper.  Chemicals 
used  in  Paper-making.  The  Process  of  "  Beating."  The  Dye- 
ing and  Colouring  of  Paper  Pulp.  Paper  Mill  Machinery.  The 
Deterioration  of  Paper.     Bibliography.     Index. 

( 7 ) 


THE   "WESTMINSTER"   SERIES 


Wood  Pulp  and  its  Applications.  By  C.  F.  Cross, 
B.Sc,  F.I.C.,  E.  J.  Bevan,  F.I.C,  and  R.  W.  Sindall, 
F.C.S.     266  pages.     36  Illustrations. 

Contents:  The  Structural  Elements  of  Wood.  Cellulose  as  a 
Chemical.  Sources  of  Supply.  Mechanical  Wood  Pulp.  Chemical 
Wood  Pulp.  The  Bleaching  of  Wood  Pulp.  News  and  Printings. 
Wood  Pulp  Boards.  Utilisation  of  Wood  Waste.  Testing  of 
Wood  Pulp  for  Moisture.  Wood  Pulp  and  the  Textile  Industries. 
Bibliography.     Index. 


Photography:  its  Principles  and  Applications. 
By  Alfred  Watkins,  F.R.P.S.  342  pages.  98  Illus- 
trations. 

Contents  :  First  Principles.  Lenses.  Exposure  Influences.  Prac- 
tical Exposure.  Development  Influences.  Practical  Develop- 
ment. Cameras  and  Dark  Room.  Orthochromatic  Photography. 
Printing  Processes.  Hand  Camera  Work.  Enlarging  and  Slide 
Making.  Colour  Photography.  General  Applications.  Record 
Applications,  Science  Applications.  Plate  Speed  Testing.  Pro- 
cess Work.     Addenda.     Index. 


IN  PREPARATION. 

Commercial  Paints  and  Painting.  By  A.  S.  Jenn- 
ings, Hon.  Consulting  Examiner,  City  and  Guilds  of 
London  Institute. 

Brewing  and  Distilling.    By  James  Grant,  F.S.C 

(  8  ) 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


^^^o^3S 


•81953  LU 


t\  .—  •W-'    »— ' 

MAYl    1960 

2aiVlay'60FK 


RECD  LD 

25  I9b9 


MAY  6    I960 


tSIWay'eOGM 


Ot 


3Jan'6lOM 

r:ic'd  ld 
MAY  -^  0  1961 


fN9TACIU< 


,^^^'' 


yT251953 

A^C'b  LUREC'D  LD 

FEB  •^'5  mn5'63-7PM 
26May'6lMM 

FiECD  LD 

MAY  1 2  1961 


LD  21-100m-7,'52(A2528sl6)476 


L^ 


^P  ^SQAO 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY  > 


